Some scholars see the gospel of John to be more fictional than the synoptics - fictional in the events and fictional in the sayings of Jesus.
I was thinking about the Didache, but the main goal of my question was to understand what was meant by faith coming from the Eucharist. There are different ways to have faith in or from the Eucharist.
I use the Synoptics more than John, a pretty typical situation with the mainline. But I think you're going a bit too far. You can make a pretty good case (see the Anchor Bible commentary on John) that its chronology is actually better than the Synoptics. As I see it, John is divided into episodes. They begin with an event or a saying by Jesus. Those are not that different from the Synoptics. However these brief things are followed by long discourses. Nominally Jesus says them, but they look like reflections by the author on the episode. It's very unlikely that Jesus actually spoke the discourses, though the theology is still worth considering. But at the core I think are episodes and brief exchanges that are reasonably plausible. Of course you have the same issue with them as with events in the Synoptics about miracles, but no more so in John.
I'm rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ and I don't need many letters at all, in the New Testament to know this gospel.
For example, a Christian might believe that the Eucharist is about nourishing the soul and faith mystically rather than intellectually. So regular participation in the Eucharist strengthens the Christian's faith in a way that the Christian can't rationally explain but has seemed to be real in experience. There is the saying that I'm sure you have heard "the greatest miracle is guaranteed to happen during the Eucharist whether a person believes it or not" (paraphrasing).
I was bringing up other things like the Eucharist, because it is my opinion that Christians derive their faith from many places aside from the Bible. Atheists who argue against Christian faith seem to think that finding a flaw or two in the Bible should make a Christian lose faith, and I don't think they realize that the faith has other sources.
I think you're right. The people for whom inerrancy is critical -- and it's a minority of Christians -- have spent generations building up approaches to explain away the kind of arguments you're talking about, so it's futile even with them.
I find this idea of deriving faith through the Eucharist to be a peculiar concept and possibly circular. Isn't the Eucharist Bible-related?
The only other sources would seem to be the Apostolic tradition and the secular history of the early years of the church, neither of which contradict the Bible or are considered to have the weight of divine revelation.
But Catholics and EO don't agree. Sola scriptura is a Protestant belief, and not all of those whole hold it believe in inerrancy.
Of course they don't, but they are wrong. There is such a thing as the teachings of the Apostles prior to the canonization of the Bible, but Sacred Tradition, so called, is a fiction. The doctrines involved never actually meet the standards of Sacred Tradition--even if it were true that it is a second stream (after the Bible books) of divine revelation.
