Who wrote the Fourth Gospel and Revelation?

[gospel_life]

I think the real question here is whether the Bible is literally inerrant in every detail, in the sense that many of the fundamentalist denominations say.

For instance are we saying that creation was literally a 7-day event, in days as we understand them? Are we saying that we can establish a time line that the earth is really only around 8000 years old despite all evidence to the contrary? If we are claiming that every detail is inerrant, which of the two very different creation stories is “true” since they can’t both be. Was the feeding of the multitudes 5000 or 4000? When did the calling of the 12 apostles really take place?

Which of the many stories involving Jesus himself are true when circumstances, characters and locations are different between the gospels? I’m not addressing parables in this case but stories presented as if they are “historical fact”, for instance the story of Jesus telling the apostles to go fish after they had been out all night and their subsequently catching more fish than their nets could hold.

I agree with Yours Truly that there are stories dealing with historical fact such as the virgin birth and the ressurection, and many others such as the Annunciation, Ascension, Pentecost and the crcucifixion itself, though to be fair the Immaculate Conception is not addressed in the Bible to the best of my knowledge. These historical events become matters of faith if for no other reason than that the Church has specifically defined them as such and are part and parcel of whether Jesus is who he said he is.

Others however become more problematic if one claims that each historical event must be accepted as inerrant since there are quite a few contradictions in details, as noted above, as well as time line issues that cannot be resolved. The belief that the sun rotates around the earth certainly caused the Church more than its share of problems even though it was taught “always and everywhere” for centuries.

I think Kirk’s question about whether the Church can find a book to be divinely-inspired while possibly getting the authorship wrong to be a valid one. It almost certainly is the case in several of the letters originally attributed to Paul, as I noted earlier.

I’m really curious as to how people here are interpreting the Church’s beliefs on inerrancy.

 

[Yours_Truly]

I’ll give this another try.
Dei Verbum from the Second Vatican Council
"books of scripture must be acknowleged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation**"

Thanks for finally posting a quote from Vatican II that you believe supports your opinion. Unfortunately, it says nothing more than that the scriptures teach solidly, faithfully and without error what God wanted put into the scriptures for the sake of our salvation. That I am in complete agreement with. The quote does not contradict the quotes I have provided which teach that the Bible is completely inherent in all its parts.

Now, the quote you provided is a favorite quote of the Liberals. They use it to justify their adherence to an error the Church has condemned, on the basis of what the quote itself does not say: namely, that historical and scientific truths contained in the Bible are not free from error. Unfortunately, that teaching is nowhere to be found in the quote.

In fact, if you read the history behind that particular quote from Dei Verbum, it is clear what the intent of the Fathers of Vatican II was. Fr. Brian Harrison wrote an article on this topic years ago in which he examined the various drafts that led up to this final draft, as well as the debates that took place during the Council over this particular sentence.

In the article from Fr. Harrison, you will find the following quote from a speech given at Vatican II by Archbishop Paul Philippe, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Religious and a consultor to the Holy Office. Regarding quote he gave the following warning:

Archbishop Pilippe: "If it is said that the sacred books teach “saving truth … without error,” this appears to restrict inerrancy to matters of faith and morals; all the more so because, according to the relator himself, this formula has been chosen in order to satisfy the requests of those Fathers who were asking that the effects of inspiration be expressed positively, and that the object of inerrancy be clearly circumscribed. The relator explains the mind of the Commission by saying that by the word salutarem we are also to understand the facts which in Scripture are linked to the history of salvation. But with that explanation, such a circumscription of the object of inerrancy is inadmissible, for it seems to me that such expressions cannot be reconciled with the firm doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. … Therefore it should not be said that the sacred books “teach” salvific truth without error, because this insinuates a distinction among the Scriptural affirmations themselves, as if some of them taught without error truths pertaining to salvation, while others had no such content and were thus not necessarily immune from error. … I request that we restore the expression “without any error,” as in the previous draft, since the documents of the Magisterium … always express themselves in such a way as to exclude completely from the sacred Scriptures every kind of error (cf. EB 124, 452, 538, 539, 560, 564).

As matters turned out, the Commission did not accede to Archbishop Philippe’s request, but it did revise its official explanation of the ambiguous amendment, making clear that it was to be understood in a more traditional sense. In this revised explanation, which is definitive for interpreting the Council’s teaching correctly, the Fathers were told:

“By the term “salvific” (salutarem) it is by no means suggested that Sacred Scripture is not in its integrity the inspired Word of God. … This expression does not imply any material limitation to the truth of Scripture, rather, it indicates Scripture’s formal specification, the nature of which must be kept in mind in deciding in what sense everything affirmed in the Bible is true - not only matters of faith and morals and facts bound up with the history of salvation. For this reason the Commission has decided that the expression should be retained”.

"This explanation still did not satisfy a significant minority of Fathers, who asked Pope Paul VI himself to intervene personally so as to require the deletion of the controversial word salutarem. The Pope heard both sides of the question, considered the matter, and agreed that this word was ambiguous and inopportune. Accordingly, while he did not go so far as to order the word to be deleted, he did request that this be done. The request was communicated to Cardinal Ottaviani, President of the Theological Commission, via a letter of 18 October 1965 from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani. When the Commission reconvened, the Supreme Pontiff’s request just failed to gain the necessary two-thirds majority of positive votes required by Council rules for this kind of last-minute change. It was agreed, however, to make two other changes which the Commission anticipated (correctly) would satisfy the Holy Father.

Here’s a link to the entire article by Fr. Harrison. It provides all of the history and debates surrounding this ambiguous quote from the Council.