I intend to focus on specific articles of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. I will focus on articles 18 and 19 which speak of the gospel's historicity. I will also look at article 11 which speaks of the inerrancy of scripture. I will critique Catholic scholars who have various perspectives on historicity and inerrancy of the Bible. I will look at modern Catholic study Bibles and how their outlook on scripture impacts their exegesis of scripture. I will see how modern Catholic scholars analyze two events in the gospel that have an important impact on the church. The establishment of Peter as the rock in Matthew 16:17-19, and the multiplication of loaves, which foreshadows the Eucharist. I will report how scholars have veered from the perspective of Dei Verbum on the reliability of scripture and authorship of the gospels. How do scholars assess their reliability, and what is its impact on theology?
These articles of Dei Verbum are foundational to this paper. Here the fathers of Vatican II make statements in regards to authorship and reliability of the gospels. First, it declares that the gospels are a special part of divine revelation because it depicts the life and ministry of Jesus, the incarnate Word. Then it states scripture's reliability:
The apostles preached, as Christ had charged them to do, and then, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they and others of the apostolic age, handed onto us in writing the same message they had preached, the foundation of our faith: the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels just named, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus,
the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up...The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which
had been handed on, either orally or already in written form, others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.
Here is a declaration of apostolic authority behind the gospels and an unhesitating declaration of the reality of the gospels in what Jesus both did and said. The term historicity in scholarly language can have varying meanings; nevertheless, historicity is defined here as faithfully handing on what Jesus really said and did. The council affirms this "unhesitatingly."
The statements about the four gospels have as a working assumption the truth of the gospels. This is confirmed by one of the Council Fathers, Cardinal Augustin Bea. Soon after the Council, Bea noted that the constitution gave an unusual emphasis to affirming the historical nature of the gospels. This historical accuracy was solemnly affirmed when it says: "Holy Mother Church has held and still holds..." adding "firmly and with absolute constancy". A reading of the text of this portion of Dei Verbum, confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible. How do modern Catholic scholars deal with this article of Dei Verbum, and does their biblical scholarship start from this assumption? Unfortunately, most seem to discard this affirmation of gospel truth.
There are varying ways that Catholic scholars deal with this article of Dei Verbum. For example, renowned scholar Raymond Brown starts from the presumption that he is in agreement with Dei Verbum in his scholarship. His reading of this article is that though the gospels are substantially historical, they are not literally historical in every word and detail. He claims that Dei Verbum allowed that the gospels thoroughly modified this history. The gospels are not necessarily literal accounts of the ministry of Jesus. Brown accounts for this interpretation of Dei Verbum by claiming that the commission makes a clear distinction between those apostles who preached the gospel and those who wrote the gospel. Brown next writes that "implicitly, then, the commission allowed for the view of most scholars today that no one of the evangelists was an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus. Rather, the evangelists were "second generation Christians" drawing their knowledge from the earlier apostolic generation that had seen him and had shaped the tradition."
Brown attacks not only apostolic authorship (which I will look at in the next section) but writes that the tradition has been shaped into something less than historical. He makes statements that go against the clear meaning of Dei Verbum. Brown ignores the three affirmations of absolute historicity of the gospels. Again, article 19 asserts:
(1) Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four gospels just named, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms,(2) faithfully hand on what Jesus,
the Son of God while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation...(3) The sacred authors, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on...always in such a fashion that they
have told us the honest truth about Jesus.
A reading of the text shows that Brown is not being honest either with his readers when he states that his questioning of the gospel's historicity is supported by Dei Verbum. Donald Senior edited "The Catholic Study Bible." He tries to find things in Dei Verbum that detract from the historicity of the gospels:
The stages in the formation of the gospels are subtly noted and it is even allowed that some of the material in the gospels was formulated not from historical recollection but in order to "synthesize" or "explain" traditions "with an eye for the situation of the churches" a clear reference to redaction criticism."
Although he purports to find support for his detracting of the gospels he does admit that Dei Verbum also supports a traditional view of inspiration. This in fact is what bothers him. He criticizes the Council as having a too limited view of the Bible as literature. Senior sees modern scholars as being more understanding of the Bible than the Council. They view the literature as not only narrative, but also with a heavy use of metaphor and symbols as effective and appropriate means of revelation. He then laments Dei Verbum's use of traditional formulations of inspiration and inerrancy. These are symptoms of a reluctance to move away from a supernaturalist viewpoint in regard to the Bible. These critiques of Dei Verbum show that he has a presumption against the supernatural, and an intention to make events that are presented in a historical manner into metaphors and symbols.
Another representative scholar is John Meier. He starts his book by writing "The historical Jesus is not the real Jesus. The real Jesus is not the historical Jesus." He then explains this by noting a real distinction between the two. Meier notes that we have little record of Jesus before his public ministry. The vast majority of his sayings and deeds in his last three years go unrecorded and are lost to history. Meier does admit that the gospels do serve as the chief sources for our reconstruction of the historical Jesus but asserts that the gospel writers do not intend to present us a historical Jesus. He then alleges that the goal of the writers is to point us towards faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ. He writes that the Jesus of faith is more important than the Jesus of history.
Dei Verbum does acknowledge that there was a three step process in arriving at the written word: 1) from the times of the events of the gospel; 2) to an oral tradition based on those events; 3) ultimately the written account of those events. This is true, but Dei Verbum nowhere asserts that errors were made in the transmission of these events. In fact Dei Verbum makes the positive point that Christian faith is bound up with a rational affirmation of the facts. When the gap between the events of the gospel gives the written version a particular form, the reality of the events are not affected. Meier's conclusions depart substantially from Dei Verbum. There was much dispute in the Council over the exact wording of Dei Verbum 19. There was some worry that the historicity of the gospels were going to be attacked. Thus the fathers added in article 19 the words "whose historical character the church unhesitatingly asserts."
Bea as a father of the Council asserts that the constitution emphatically asserts the apostolic origin of the gospel (see text on page 1). When apostles are not the authors (such as Mark and Luke) Dei Verbum uses the exact words of Luke to testify of the reliability of his gospel.
I next will look at a sampling of recent Catholic Bible studies and commentaries on authorship of the four gospels. How do modern scholars assess the age old tradition of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as authors of the gospel? I will not get into the Q source, and Luke and Matthew borrowing from Mark, but how these scholars squares with Dei Verbum.
Donald Senior denies the ancient tradition that the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel. "The gospel is based in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark. It is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather rely on his own memories." The New Jerusalem Bible states many have doubts of Matthew's authorship. It asserts that it is taken for granted that the author of Matthew borrowed from Mark and a Q source.
Senior likewise discounts the unanimous tradition of Mark getting his information from Peter as the source of the gospel. This tradition should not be overplayed. In fact, modern research often proposes as the author "an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70." The New Jerome Biblical commentary acknowledges the tradition of Peter being the source of Mark's gospel but downplays it. It asserts that it is better not to lean too heavily on the assumption that Peter was Mark's sole or even primary conduit to Jesus' public ministry. The New Jerusalem Bible dismisses the connection between Peter and Mark. The connection between Mark and Peter is termed at most remote and tenuous. Luke fairs no better with these scholars. The Catholic Study Bible asserts that Luke is dependent on Mark. It writes that Luke imitated Old Testament birth stories in his writing. Then it claims that Luke combined historical and legendary details, literary ornamentation and interpretation of scripture to define who is Jesus Christ. The New Jerusalem Bible doubts that the author was in fact a companion of Paul.
The apostle John then gets taken to task by the same authors. The Catholic Study Bible writes "critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person." There are two inconsistent endings of the last supper discourse as well as of the gospel. According to this study Bible there were editors who produced these inconsistencies. A problem that I have with this, is if there were all these editors, would they not clear up perceived inconsistencies? Extensive editing would eliminate, not create perceived inconsistencies. The New Jerusalem Bible admits that John may have written this gospel. If he did write it he reshaped and expanded sources to adapt them for his own theology. Of course it is a likely possibility that the attribution of the gospel to the apostle John could be the result of a confusion between John the apostle and John the Elder.
This scholarship is a far cry from the historically unanimous and uncontested church attribution of the gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. At the beginning of this century, when form criticism attacked apostolic authorship, the Pontifical Biblical Commission gave a detailed defense of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John being the sole authors of the gospels that have their name attached. For example, in reference to John's gospel it declared:
Does the constant, universal, and solemn tradition of the church
back to the second century and witnessed by:....prove that John the
Apostle and no other is to be acknowledged as the author of the fourth
gospel, and that by an historic argument so firmly established without
reference to theological considerations that the reasons adduced by
critics to the contrary in no way weaken this tradition? Answer - In
Here they reflect a unanimous consent of history. A reading of Dei Verbum seems to affirm this long standing tradition. How do modern scholars affirm that the gospels were written? A perusal of their writings show that they believe that the gospels were heavily edited by many people who were part of the church. Some of the events can be traced to Jesus, others can be traced just to the creative imagination of people inside the church. They all assert that the purpose of the gospel writers was not to give historical facts, but build up the faith of individuals. By saying this, are we not denying the historical truth? John Meier claims that history must be seen in the sense that the church meant when the gospels were written:
One can collect descriptive historical knowledge ('hard' knowledge) about a person of the ancient past called Jesus of Nazareth; this is the level of the 'historical.' One can then proceed to highlight and appropriate those aspects of this historical knowledge that would be significant for us today. This is the level of the historic. The second level must be careful distinguished from a third level, namely faith and knowledge of Jesus as Lord and Christ. The faith stance that prompts me to call Jesus my Lord and Savior.
The gospels, according to Meier are meant to show not necessarily a Jesus of concrete words and deeds, but to point us to faith in him. There is truth in the sense that the gospel writers did have a theological purpose in writing about the Jesus of history. Any reading of John shows that there are deep theological purposes shown in the stories about Jesus. However, in the older Catholic commentary on Holy Scripture points are made against these arguments. The whole theory is based on the supposition that the early Christians had no biographical interest on life of Jesus and that a strange transformation of the portrait of Jesus occurred at a time when plenty of eye-witnesses were still alive. This supposition is dubious. It also assumes that the church was not organized and individuals came up with things without there being any authority to stop them. Then when these individuals came up with sayings that they falsely attributed to Jesus, all the church assented, and said "Even though Jesus really did not say that, it will increase our faith if we say that he said that, so let us make this scripture." This is another highly dubious supposition.
These are historical scholars; nevertheless, none of the suppositions mentioned is backed by historical evidence. No church fathers, including the earliest ones such as Justin Martyr or Ireneaus, show any hint of these suppositions. Whenever they quoted New Testament scripture, the texts are quoted as facts. There has not been found in any of the church tombs that historical evidence in the gospels was shaped in such a way that the events and sayings of Jesus were altered. In regards to authorship of the gospels, church fathers did not write that they were edited by other people than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The discounting of all historical, external evidence to arrive at these conclusions is very suspicious.
Bea notes that scripture does not reveal a church having loose canons inventing things. "We are not dealing with the preaching of enthusiastic fanatics, but with an apostolate which is strictly organized and controlled by the leaders themselves. A few examples of this leadership is shown in Acts 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 8:14-17; 9:32-42."
These scholars also pit faith against historical truth. As the council father Bea notes, they assert that faith gives a prejudiced attitude with regards to its object, whereas the historian necessarily adopts an absolutely objective and impartial attitude. When they say faith distorts facts, they are not being objective.
In this matter Dei Verbum clearly took the side of historical accuracy of the gospels. There were five different proposals and schemes. When a weaker statement was made the pope wrote "It appears that the expression does not give assurance of the real historicity of the gospels. On this point, as is evident, the Holy Father could not approve a formula which leaves room for doubt as to the historicity of these sacred books." The important positive that the Council wanted to make was that the Christian faith is bound up with a rational affirmation of the facts. Therefore the Council added in article 19 the words about the gospels "whose historical character the church unhesitatingly asserts."
Although the focus of this paper is the historicity of the gospels, one can not discuss Dei Verbum and the infallibility of the gospels, without mentioning article 11, the section on the inerrancy of the Bible. Due to space limitations, I can only briefly discuss this section. There was much debate and division over this article in the constitution. The wording of this article was changed many times before it reached its final conclusion. The prior wording ranged from a traditional assertion of inerrancy, to wording that would limit scripture's infallibility to matters of salvation. They did not simply reiterate past statements, so as to give freedom to theological scholarship; nevertheless this article still has a strong statement on inerrancy. It states:
Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must
acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scripture.
Many scholars see a loophole in the second half of this statement
to buttress their thesis that the Bible is errant. They claim that this
section limits infallibility to matters of salvation. The Bible is not
history book, as that is not the Bible's purpose. The New Jerome
Biblical Commentary does put forth such a claim. Based on this
interpretation, it claims that now we have a more adequate understanding
of the nature of scripture as not primarily a source for doctrine.
Senior claims that the term without error is used with sufficient nuance
that it does not apply globally to the Bible.
Raymond Brown claimed that Rome has led Catholicism away from a literalism about everything described in the Bible. He claims that this process started slowly at the beginning of the century, then with Divino Afante, and finalized with Dei Verbum, it is now "official church teaching that the whole Bible is not historical." He then labels those who believe in the historicity of the Bible as being fundamentalists. His lauding of historical criticism was due to his view of the facts being that it "was developed through the recognition that the biblical accounts described things that "ain"t necessarily so."" His goal in education, based on his reading of the church documents is that it is now perfectly correct within Catholic teaching to recognize that not everything in the Bible is historical.
Brown is correct in one point: it is true that not everything in the Bible is necessarily historical. One needs only to read the Song of Solomon to recognize this. It is also true that Divino Affante did push scholarship to understand the different types of literature within the Bible. In order to understand scripture we must make such efforts; nevertheless, the events that are not portrayed in poetic or allegorical form, and put out as historical events, must be seen as historical. Many unfortunately parabolize or allegorize historical events.
Are these scholars correct in their interpretation of Dei Verbum 11" Unfortunately, they have strayed also in their interpretation of article 11. None of the scholars mentioned refer to the first part of the article. Here it asserts that"all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit,..." Even before we get to the rest of the section, the declaration that all things written are affirmed by the Holy Spirit puts to rest Brown's assertion that it is official church teaching that there are errors in the Bible. The Holy Spirit is God. God is not a liar (Heb. 6:18), even about historical things. He can not affirm error.
The next concern is did Dei Verbum in the very next statement contradict itself and limit scripture's inerrancy to salvation? Did it imply that scripture could be faulty in historical matters? In one of the earlier drafts, it was stated in such a way that it could be implied that "the truth of salvation" is what inerrancy of scripture was limited to. A group of bishops sent to the pope a memo that this term was inserted with just that concern, that it was limiting scripture's inerrancy to salvation. The holy father was also concerned with that
wording and suggested eliminating the phrase "truth of salvation" in regards to inerrancy. If such an interpretation could be granted, the pope and the theological commission saw that the church would be
contradicting itself. The phrase "truth of salvation" if seen as restricting inerrancy to salvation would be contrary to the documents of the teaching church. At the end of the 19th century the church produced
a syllabus of errors in which the proposition that limited inerrancy to matters of faith and morals was condemned. Pope Benedict XV specifically condemned a like proposition (Spiritus Paraclitus 21), as he asserted that the Bible was free of all error. The end result was the text as we have it now. The theological
commission held that:
The expression salutaris (salvation) should in no way imply that
scripture is not in its totality, inspired and the word of truth, the
gospel of your salvation.... The commission accepted a suggestion
presented by 73 fathers to improve the text so that it reads as we have
it now (the final text).
There follows a reference to the expansion
note 5, by quoting the encyclicals Providentissimus and Divino Affante.
Dei Verbum 11 footnotes Providentissimus article 21 which says:
those who maintain that there is an error in any genuine passage of
sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration,
make God the author of such error.... the divine writings, as left by
hagiographers, are free from all error.
Then Dei Verbum footnotes
Divino Affante which affirms Providentissimus. This further asserts pure inerrancy.
The background at the arrival to the conciliar text, the constant teaching of the infallible church, the move to quote encyclicals that assert in no uncertain terms biblical inerrancy in all matters mentioned, should put to rest the idea that Dei Verbum allowed any errors in the Bible, as long as we understand the different types of biblical literature.
Briefly I will examine how scholars who misuse the historical-critical approach, exegete specific passages in scripture. Many charge that those who stray from biblical inerrancy and thus the constant teaching of the church undermine the faith, because it discourages people from believing that the Bible is fully the word of God.
Raymond Brown heatedly denies this approach undermines the faith
of Catholics. He claims that there is no instance in which Catholic
historical-critical exegetes contradict Catholic dogma properly
understood. He then goes on to say that it is acceptable that dogma
be based on scripture. After all, we do not believe in sola scriptura:
Defense in Catholic dogma expresses divine revelation as interpreted
the teaching church; therefore, it is perfectly possible to claim that
the Bible, historically-critically considered, does not offer sufficient
proof for a doctrine and still think the dogma must be accepted as
infallibly taught because of church tradition.
Brown then claims that no other method has been devised that will
answer purely historical questions better: and we are on dangerous ground
when we decide that historical answers (even when they are disturbing)
are irrelevant or must be changed precisely because they upset our
outlook. The ironic thing is that he claims to go by historical
evidence, but such exegetes ignore the unanimous historical evidence
tradition that supports the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
They also produce no tangible, historical documents that show that
members of the first century church changed, or added to what Jesus
actually said and did. Not one of the church fathers, or any early
church documents give a hint to any of these theories. This historical
evidence is ignored by these exegetes, because it upsets their outlook.
Let us examine modern scholar exegesis of the passage. I will look at the Jerome Biblical Commentary, Catholic Study Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and the New Jerome Biblical Commentary. These are study Bibles most available to Catholics. In this passage there are two questions to be studied, did Jesus really say it, and what does it teach? In regards to the latter, they do support the Catholic teaching on the matter, explaining fairly thoroughly that the verses support the establishment of Peter as the leader of the church.
The question is did Jesus really say these verses as reported by Matthew? The older commentary took it as a fact, and saw no need to defend its authenticity. On the other hand, The Catholic Study Bible claims that this is a creation of the church. Whoever wrote Matthew combined his source's confession with a post-resurrectional confession of faith in Jesus as Son of the living God that belonged to the appearance of the risen Jesus to Peter. Commentaries that Brown edits show a lack of concern for Jesus actually saying this. In the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 17 is termed a macarism, while vv. 18-19 is viewed as an etiological legend explaining Peter's change of name. The establishment of Peter as the leader is seen as a compromise of the factions in the church that saw Paul as a leader and James as a leader. Peter is seen as a compromise leader that holds both tendencies (the Paul vs. James faction) in the early church in an uneasy synthesis. The church had no concern for what Jesus actually said. The Jerome Biblical Commentary wrote that Jesus probably did name him Peter but "This does not imply that Mt has preserved "the very words" of Jesus; this can rarely be said of any passage in the gospels." If this is so, we can not trust that Jesus gave Peter the power to bind and loose, as well as the keys, which are essential for the Catholic view of the papacy.
Another example to show how this scholarship indirectly attacks the faith is the multiplication of loaves. All commentaries see the relation between the miracle of the multiplication of loaves and the institution of the Eucharist. It is a miracle that is relayed in all four gospels. Did the multiplication happen two times as relayed in Mark 6:31-44 and 8:1-10" The modern commentaries believe that it only happened once, and what is written is an exaggeration. The Catholic Study Bible acknowledges the dissimilaritiy of detail but the one event developed into two distinct traditions. According to this theory one tradition is Jewish and another is Gentile Christian. The Jerome Biblical Commentary declares that the original account of Jesus" gestures has been expanded by details from the institution of the Eucharist. It acknowledges the differences in the accounts mentioned in Mark but the church basically manufactured the second miraculous event because it foreshadows the Christian Eucharist. It claims that Matthew"s version probably exaggerated the amount of people fed. After all, oral tradition tends to raise such figures. If indeed oral tradition is not reliable, and all acknowledge this multiplication of loaves is linked to the Eucharist, why should we believe in the institution of the Eucharist" How do we know that Jesus really established the Eucharist, and his real presence in the Eucharist. If oral tradition as such is unreliable, then not only is the Bible unreliable, but the whole basis for Catholicism is undermined.
The older commentary focuses on the internal evidence. Both Matthew and Mark record two miracles with distinct differences. One miracle was performed in the wilderness, the other near Bethsaida-Julias with towns and villages nearby. In one he took the initiative, in the other he responded only after the disciples wanted to send the people away. There are also differences in the number of those who were fed, the number of loaves and fishes, and the number of baskets of fragments which were left over. This indeed shows that there were two multiplications of loaves.
Dei Verbum is a strong call to faith in the veracity of the
Bible. It affirms that we can in full confidence believe in the gospels.
I have shown how prominent scholars have put their own reading into
text, or ignored the clear meaning of the texts of Dei Verbum
As one commentator noted on Dei Verbum,
the conciliar text on
historicity of the gospels represents a shining beacon for every exegete
wishing to penetrate without risk of getting lost, the unfathomable
depths the four evangelists have handed on to us."
I have examined
three articles in Dei Verbum that deal with historicity of the gospels
well as the inerrancy of the Bible as a whole. I have shown how many
scholars have unfortunately distorted the meaning of Dei Verbum and
gospels. The misuse of the historical-critical approach ignores evidence
that supports the infallibility of not only the gospels but the whole
Bible. Lay readers of these study Bibles and commentaries unfortunately
do not know that Vatican II affirms the historicity of the gospels and
the inerrancy of the whole Bible. We need more scholars to defend the
Bible"s inerrancy in the letter and spirit of Vatican II.
Brown, Raymond Edward, ed. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1990.
Brown, Raymond Edward. Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine New York:Paulist Press, 1985.
Brown, Raymond Edward, ed. Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, 1968.
Caba, Jose, S.J. Historicity of the Gospels (Dei Verbum). Vatican II:Assessment and Perspectives. Twenty Five Years After. vol. 1. Ed. Rene Latourelle. New York: Paulist Press, 1989
Flannery, Austin, O.P., Ed. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Vol. 1. Northport: Costello Publishing Company, 1975.
Grillmeier, Alois, ed. "Chapter 3, "The Divine Interpretation and the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture," Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II. Ed. Herbert Vorgrimler. vol. 3. New York: Herder and Herder, 1969.
Latourelle, Rene, ed. Vatican II: Assessment and Perspectives: Twenty-Five Years After. Vol. 1. New York: Paulist Press, 1989.
Orchard, Bernard, ed. A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture.New York: Nelson, 1953.
Rigaux, Beda. "Chapter 5," Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II. Ed. Herbert Vorgrimler. New York: Herder and Herder, 1969.
Senior, Donald, ed. The Catholic Study Bible: the New American Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Senior, Donald, ed. "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," Vatican II and its Documents: An American Reappraisal. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1986.
Wansbrough, Henry, ed. The New Jerusalem Bible. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1985.
© 1998 Analysis of Dei Verbum 11:18,19: A look at Biblical Inerrancy...by Matt1618... This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.