La Bibbia nel Concilio: La redazione della costituzione "Dei Verbum" del Vaticano II by Riccardo Burigana (review)

592BOOK REVIEWS ments in theology and history. The greatest contribution of this book is thus not the debatable conclusion which it reaches, but rather the challenging question which it proposes. Francis J. Murphy Boston College La Bibbia nel Concilio: La redazione delta costituzione "Dei Verbum"del Vaticano II. By Riccardo Burigana. [Istituto per Ie scienze religiose: Testi e ricerche di scienze religiose, nuova serie, 21.] (Bologna: Società éditrice il Mulino. 1998. Pp. 514. Lire 65,000 paperback.) This work recounts in great detail the evolution of Vatican Council II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation from the ante-preparatory phase of the Council to the final vote of November 18, 1965. Thanks to his thorough examination of many personal archives, the author is able to trace every stage of the discussion in the various committees and subcommittees that were responsible for this Council document. On the whole, the author's analysis confirms the usual interpretation, even while adding some surprising details. The original schémas on "The Fonts of Revelation" and the "Deposit of Faith" were prepared, as is well known, by theologians of the Roman school under the supervision of Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Father Sebastian Tromp, SJ. These schémas were challenged by a loosely knit group of non-Italian theologians, including Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, Edward Schillebeeckx, Yves Congar, Marie-Dominique Chenu, and Henri de Lubac. In the course of time these theologians were supported by exegetes and ecumenists who shared the concerns of Pope John XXIII that the Council be oriented toward a return to the sources, aggiornamento, and the promotion of Christian unity. After the creation of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, the reformist party could count on the patronage of Cardinal Augustine Bea, its president. Cardinal Franz König and many bishops rallied to the reformist cause. Throughout the Council the sharpest debate about revelation focused on the question of the "two sources." Granted that revelation was transmitted through Scripture and Tradition under the vigilance of the magisterium, were there any truths contained in Tradition that were not also in Scripture? The Roman school considered the affirmative answer to be a matter of faith, constantly taught, at least since the Council of Trent. The opposition, influenced by Josef Rupert Geiselmann's research on the Council of Trent, maintained that Catholics were free to hold that all revelation was in Scripture, even though some revealed truths could not be fully and clearly known without the help of tradition. The Secretariat argued that since the Geiselmann position was compatible with the letter of Trent, and was more acceptable to Protestants, it could and should be tolerated. BOOK REVIEWS593 The debate at the first session of the Council showed much dissatisfaction with the initial schémas prepared by the Roman school.John XXIII accordingly constituted a "mixed commission" under the joint presidency of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bea to draft a new document. But the mixed commission reached a stalemate on the question of "constitutive tradition." Several other points were sharply debated. The Roman school held for the absolute inerrancy of the Bible, whereas the reformists were willing to admit errors in Scripture provided that they were not formally taught. Secondly, the revised schémas seemed to limit revelation to "salutary truths," an expression that the Roman school found vague and confusing. The Roman school were dissatisfied ,thirdly,with the schémas that failed to affirm the historical reliability of the Gospels. On all these points, persistently championed by Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini, Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, Bishop Luigi Carli, and others, Paul VI finally intervened to insist on changes to accommodate the concerns of the minority, and Cardinal Bea himself went along with the pope. In the end, therefore, the Constitution on Divine Revelation, while more ecumenical in tone, was not markedly different in substance from the schémas prepared before the Council and withdrawn at the first session. Thanks to his extensive research, Burigana is able to give an exact account of the positions taken by hundreds of theologians who engaged in the debates on revelation. Although the account is clear in itself, it is inevitably repetitious; it is also difficult to follow unless one makes constant reference...