Does the book of Sirach disprove the inerrancy of scripture?

[lopski28]

[Background: Sacred scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and inerrant. (From the Catechism glossary: BIBLICAL INSPIRATION: The gift of the Holy Spirit which assisted a human author to write a biblical book so that it has God as its author and teaches faithfully, without error, the saving truth that God has willed to be consigned to us (105). INERRANCY: The attribute of the books of Scripture whereby they faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to have confided through the Sacred Scriptures (107)). Inerrancy as I understand it then extends to what the biblical writers intended to teach. The Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) states, "...since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (11). Inerrancy is not limited to religious truths necessary for salvation or to religious matters. (The language of Dei Verbum 11 is taken directly from previous conciliar and papal teaching on the subject, wherein the footnotes to this section refer to Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus and Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu, documents which reject the idea that inerrancy is limited to religious matters. The theological commission at the Council stated that the term salutaris (“for the sake of our salvation”) doesn’t mean that only the salvific truths of the Bible are inspired or that the Bible as a whole isn’t the Word of God, see A. Grillmeier’s “The Divine Inspiration and Interpretation of Sacred Scripture” in H. Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. III, p. 213.).]

Question: If the bible is inerrant in what the biblical author intends to teach and guided by the Holy Spirit, then it must not advise something that is false. While there may be examples throughout scripture elsewhere (feel free to discuss), the book of Sirach has a few examples I would like to explore that seem to advise something that is false, according to how it seems contrary to other scripture and/or to Church teaching. These are some examples:

1. Sirach 12:4-7 says to give to the good/Godly man, but do not help the sinner. It also says do good to the humble, but do not give to the ungodly; hold back his bread and do not give it to him... for you will receive twice as much evil for all the good which you do to him. Is this correct? is this not contradicted by Romans 12:20, Matthew 5:43-47, and Luke 6:27-28, and even Proverbs 25:21-22? Similarly, Sirach 22:13 says to not visit an unintelligent man, to guard yourself from him to escape trouble. Is this correct, even in ministry?
2. Sirach 12:6 says the Most High hates sinners. Is this correct, given that God is love and we are taught that God hates the sin but loves the sinner?
3. Sirach 40:28-29 says it is better to die than live the life of a beggar, and when a man looks to another table, his existence cannot be considered as a life. Is this correct, especially given the Beatitudes and all humans being made in the image of God?
4. Sirach 30:9-13 says to not play with a child, not to laugh with him, and beat his sides while he is young. Is this correct?
5. Sirach 42:12 to not sit in the midst of women and in 42:14 that better is the wickedness of man than a woman who does good; and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace. Is this correct if men and women are equally valuable?
6. Sirach 33:25-28 warning to not leave a slave's hands idle, or else he will seek liberty, and for a wicked servant there are racks and tortures, and if he does not obey, make his chains heavy. Is this correct?
7. Sirach 25:26 says to separate yourself from your wife is she does not go as you direct. Commentary I have read on the matter suggest this is likely referring to divorce. Is that correct wisdom? We know that divorce was permitted by Moses due to the hardness of hearts, but forbidden by Jesus. While I dont see its initial permission and later forbiddance as contradictory, Sirach is a book of wisdom, and this verse advises to divorce if your wife does not do as you say, which is inerrant and assisted by the Holy Spirit.

A few lines of thought to reconcile these examples:

• (EDIT #1) Poetry and prose: This is similar to hyperbole, but I think more fitting for understanding. This i think pretty clearly can explain Sirach 42:12-14 and Sirach 40:28-29, I can now pretty fairly see the language consistent with more so than strict literal advice/assertion. Perhaps the point is to be weary of women and of becoming a beggar, which makes sense coming from a father, and the author just chooses a poetic style of asserting it.
• Hyperbole: while I think there is hyperbole involved in all of these examples, at this moment this does not explain away my concerns. For example, commentary I have read (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible) on Sirach 42:12-14 states that there is overstatement for rhetorical effect in this verse, but continues by saying it was evidence that Ben Sira was a product of the culture at the time that greatly undervalued women. So even if there is hyperbole, it seems appropriately understood that the author is still at best teaching the evaluation women as something less than men, even if just a little bit. And the culture at that time agreed with the author, so the hyperbole is not safely countercultural enough to bend the scales towards truth despite any inherant falsehood. Also, Sirach 25:26 cannot be explained by hyperbole (expect maybe in regard to a wife "doing as you direct"), since you are either divorced or not divorced, unless the separation being referenced was truly not divorce. Jesus said that "“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26), so we know hatred can be seen as in scripture as hyperbolic (or an illustration of prioritization), but the blatant phrasing in Sirach seems to say otherwise.
• Circumstantial wisdom: The author's inerrant inspired advice could be thought of as valid for only certain circumstance. This is an okay possibility for Sirach 30:9-13, as certain forms of play and laughter could be harmful for a father to engage in with a child (though we do not get hints of this from the text), and some physical discipline of children does not have clear prohibition by the church. I think this circumstantial wisdom approach could be a possible yet weak explanation for Sirach 12:47. It is weak given the plethora of differing teachings from scripture.
• Improper understanding of inerrancy: perhaps the premise is incorrect, and inerrancy does not extend to what the biblical writers intended to teach, or "what they intended to teach" meant more generally for the themes of the books. But that seems to undervalue the meaning of inerrancy.
• Improper understanding of church teaching: Maybe some of these things aren't contradictory. Does God hate some sinners or not? Besides pointing to a few bible verses, I don't know of anything concrete about this teaching besides what I have heard thrown around in school and by teachers.
• Translation/phrasing: The book of Sirach had a long and short version, and there are some differences in the greek manuscripts and the hebrew manuscripts, the latter being finally found in the 1900s after being lost since about AD 400. Perhaps in this confusion as well as the standard problem of language translation there can be reconciliation for some of the verses. The closest I have seen to this was a different wording for Sirach 42:12 and beating the sides in Sirach 30:9-13 referring to an analogy of a rider whipping his horse. This doesn't make much headway, but there could be more examples I am unfamiliar with.

Please let me know your thoughts, thanks!

 

[po18guy]

A: No, it does not. What is your purpose/agenda? A college paper?

 

[lopski28]

A: No, it does not. What is your purpose/agenda? A college paper?

Just personal understanding of scripture and God. Not for a paper or college.

 

[BartholomewB]

INERRANCY: The attribute of the books of Scripture whereby they faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to have confided through the Sacred Scriptures (107)). Inerrancy as I understand it then extends to what the biblical writers intended to teach. The Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) states, "...since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (11). Inerrancy is not limited to religious truths necessary for salvation

In discussions of this kind about the OT books, it is important not to lose sight of an important historical fact. Each of the sacred writers lived at a certain time and in a certain place, and his cultural environment will inevitably have left its mark on his text.

@lopski28, you have quoted quite extensively from #11 in Dei Verbum. Just a few lines lower down, in #12, Dei Verbum goes on to say:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

And another thing. The word “inerrancy” occurs nowhere in Dei Verbum. That’s another relevant fact to be borne in mind.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist...ents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

 

[vz71]

Please let me know your thoughts, thanks!

I think that this shotgun approach to your questions is counterproductive.

You should center on one specific at a time.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I think that this shotgun approach to your questions is counterproductive.

You should center on one specific at a time.

That's what I was thinking. I've been staying out of this discussion, as it's simply too far out of my wheelhouse.

All I need to know is that, pace the Protestants, Sirach is indeed an inspired book of the Old Testament, and since God cannot lie, and His Word is true, any apparent contradictions are due either to mistranslation or misrendering of the original texts (which are lost), or mysteries which we cannot know. We don't base our faith on the Bible, in the sense that the Bible is an a priori source of Church teaching, rather, we base it on the teaching and tradition of the Church (and Scripture is really just one form of Catholic Tradition), which is inspired by the Holy Ghost to teach infallibly (either through her ordinary magisterium or ex cathedra).

Protestants have been trying to "get their faith from the Bible" for 500 years, and the result has been more different Protestant sects than can be counted, all with their own little "take" on things, and often in diametric opposition to one another.

 

[lopski28]

In discussions of this kind about the OT books, it is important not to lose sight of an important historical fact. Each of the sacred writers lived at a certain time and in a certain place, and his cultural environment will inevitably have left its mark on his text.

@lopski28, you have quoted quite extensively from #11 in Dei Verbum. Just a few lines lower down, in #12, Dei Verbum goes on to say:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

And another thing. The word “inerrancy” occurs nowhere in Dei Verbum. That’s another relevant fact to be borne in mind.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist...ents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

In discussions of this kind about the OT books, it is important not to lose sight of an important historical fact. Each of the sacred writers lived at a certain time and in a certain place, and his cultural environment will inevitably have left its mark on his text.

@lopski28, you have quoted quite extensively from #11 in Dei Verbum. Just a few lines lower down, in #12, Dei Verbum goes on to say:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

And another thing. The word “inerrancy” occurs nowhere in Dei Verbum. That’s another relevant fact to be borne in mind.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist...ents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

It’s true that we must pay attention to styles and customs at the time and of how they relate to the way the authors communicate. But it’s also true that this does not allow for scripture to become erroneous. Maybe Dei Verbum doesn’t say inerrant but it does say “without error”, which is the same thing. I would say what you have brought up is a good line of thought that I should have included. But as a book of wisdom, the challenge is that a lot of the verses are simply advice that the author intends to convey. But to be sure, prevalent methods of communication and expression at the time can be in effect that might explain a deeper subtlety in what the author wants to convey. Thank you for the reply!

 

[lopski28]

I think that this shotgun approach to your questions is counterproductive.

You should center on one specific at a time.

Perhaps. I did not mean to be counterproductive; I guess I didn’t want to flood the forum with several questions back to back on the same matter, and figured it was efficient to include a few examples in one post. To all reading, don’t feel like you have to address each point in order to reply, i appreciate all thoughts on the points mentioned even if addressed individually!

 

[po18guy]

Just personal understanding of scripture and God. Not for a paper or college.

1. You are judging a multi-translated and multi-copied and re-copied text. What you are reading as translated by a modern using modern text may have very little actual connection to the original author's intent in the original language. 2. Scripture is inerrant regarding faith and morals. Many persons, places etc. in scripture cannot be verified. 3. David often prayed that his enemies be utterly destroyed. Does that render the Psalms invalid? 4. The Old Covenant is radically different from the new. How many times did our Lord say "You have heard it said...but I SAY..."? He was overturning the punitive nature of the Mosaic Law. 5. Since you are seemingly an undetermined variety of Protestant, are you seeking to discredit the Deuterocanonical books? 6. Look at the New Testament. Arimathea and Emmaus are two cities mentioned. There is no record of them. However, BOTH are also mentioned in the Deuterocanon. 7. For Orthodox and Catholics, the Church has spoken. Causa finita est.
You might well benefit from a copy of "Where We Got The Bible" by the Rev. Henry G. Graham.

 

[po18guy]

From the Catechism. I do not trust other sources, as they are often agenda-driven.

II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "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 Scriptures.

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book". Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, "not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living".If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open (our) minds to understand the Scriptures."

NOTE: "without error." Protestant interpretations of this simple, two-word phrase risk (and have) blurred the meaning and afforded numerous denominations and individuals to impute private notions as to the nature and content of Holy Writ. Since Christ founded His Church on no such obscurity, it is to be avoided.

As an aside, a single man - for personal reasons - declared seven entire books of Hebrew Scripture to be lacking inspiration. Since he possessed no authority to make this proclamation, he fosters only a personal opinion. There has never been any form of Protestant "council" to assemble, test, and compile the hundreds of extant writings - all of which held claim to divine authority. Thus lacking foundation, the 66 book abbreviated canon must properly be rejcted by Christians.

Further:

. Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church

131 "and such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigour, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life."

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. the ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."

133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ."

NOTE: The Church teaches that "without error" applies strictly to matters of faith and morality. Certain historical references, geopgraphical locations, persons and chronological orders may not be 100% accurate or verifiable. For example, the Gospel of Mark contains events in a different order than the others. This in no way alters its teaching on matters of faith and morality.

As well, scrioture must be both read and understood in context and in light of what was revealed to and through the Apostles and fathers of the Church. Nothing may contradict, as contradiction would perevent any selection from inclusion in the canon. However! We must always bear in mind that God has established various covenants with mankind through the ages and that the covenants, while similar, do have different content. The New and everlasting Covenant must not be comflated with the rules and practices of the old.

If scripture is viewed as "perfect" and without error in any manner whatsoever; whether grammatical, structural or sequential, it will not withstand scrutiny. The human authors were not robots. Their skill in transmitting the intent of the Holy Spirit was still subject to their individual human limitations and failings. Indeed, many of the books, particlarly in the Old Testament, have unknown authors. Yet, the message which God intends to convey relating to faith and morality are preserved from error.

Again, there are zero "original" (or "autograph") copies of any scripoture. None. Jerome in the 300s did not have a single original. All autograph scriptures had been lost due to the fragilitry of the primitive papyrus on which they were swritten. All available examples have been copied and re-copied - by hand - hundreds of times. Thus, certain copyist errors have slipped in over the ages. No bible of any translation is 100% accurate, as the very nature of translation alters or flavors the original writing. This is the burden mankind has borne since the Tower of Babel was planned.

Again, a copy of "Where We Got The Bible" can be extremely helpful in understanding the limitations of the scriotural texts - but NOT the meaning of scripture as to matter of faith and morality.

 

[lopski28]

1. You are judging a multi-translated and multi-copied and re-copied text. What you are reading as translated by a modern using modern text may have very little actual connection to the original author's intent in the original language. 2. Scripture is inerrant regarding faith and morals. Many persons, places etc. in scripture cannot be verified. 3. David often prayed that his enemies be utterly destroyed. Does that render the Psalms invalid? 4. The Old Covenant is radically different from the new. How many times did our Lord say "You have heard it said...but I SAY..."? He was overturning the punitive nature of the Mosaic Law. 5. Since you are seemingly an undetermined variety of Protestant, are you seeking to discredit the Deuterocanonical books? 6. Look at the New Testament. Arimathea and Emmaus are two cities mentioned. There is no record of them. However, BOTH are also mentioned in the Deuterocanon. 7. For Orthodox and Catholics, the Church has spoken. Causa finita est.
You might well benefit from a copy of "Where We Got The Bible" by the Rev. Henry G. Graham.

Thank you for the book recommendation, that is a good point I will look into that. In regards to if scripture isinerrant regarding faith and morals only, after some further research, I have found that it is at the end of the day debated among theologians. I suggest that it is NOT limited to those matters, but i suppose I could be mistaken. See my background section in the original post (and the addition in bold) for my reasoning:

"Inerrancy is not limited to religious truths necessary for salvation or to religious matters. (The language of Dei Verbum 11 is taken directly from previous conciliar and papal teaching on the subject, wherein the footnotes to this section refer to Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus and Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu, documents which reject the idea that inerrancy is limited to religious matters. The theological commission at the Council stated that the term salutaris (“for the sake of our salvation”) doesn’t mean that only the salvific truths of the Bible are inspired or that the Bible as a whole isn’t the Word of God, see A. Grillmeier’s “The Divine Inspiration and Interpretation of Sacred Scripture” in H. Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. III, p. 213. Pope Pius XII condemned the actions of those who "ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals" in Providentissimus Deus)"

Many persons and places cannot be verified, but does that mean they did not exist. The Hittites and Nebuchadnezzar's successor Belshazaar were once doubted by modern scholars for only appearing in the bible and not elsewhere, until archeological proof was discovered verifying their existences. Even if we never find external proof outside of the bible, I think the people back then would certainly know more than us on the matter. So this would be no reason to doubt the inerrancy of scripture.

I don't suppose David praying his enemies be destroyed renders psalms invalid since biblical figures are capable of doing wrong things (not that praying for enemies to be destroyed is necessarily wrong, though we are instructed in NT to pray for those who persecute us) and then writing about them - the inerrancy would be found in what David was intending to convey -that he did pray for that destruction to happen because of his distress. David could be using emotional language to properly convey his feelings of distress as he intended to, and does not assert if it was the right thing to do or not. I think the difference between your example and mine is that the examples I gave come from a book of wisdom, whereas David is probably not inferring that it is wise to pray for the utter destruction of your enemies, but rather that he did indeed pray for that to happen because of his distress. Although, counter to my point, books of wisdom employ poetry and prose to get their points across, not strictly literal advice. I have added an edit to the original post as the first of the "lines of thought" that can help in understanding these verses.

Yes the old covenant is different from the new, but the book of Sirach does not speak of the law but rather of what is wise. Can there be a difference in what is wise in times of the old testament and what is wise in the times of the new testament? Certainly in the eyes of men. But in the eyes of an immutable God? I suppose it is quite possible - and worth pondering.

I am not protestant. Just a Catholic interested in learning more about scripture and reading through the whole bible. Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.

 

[BartholomewB]

For at least some prominent Catholic exegetes, inerrancy is clearly not an issue at the forefront of their concerns. Here is what Raymond Brown’s New Jerome Biblical Commentary says about a couple of the passages on your list:

On Sir 12:1-6 (your points #1 and 2):
• This pragmatic advice is typical of Ben Sira and the later rabbis, but it is at variance with the teaching of Jesus (p. 501a)

On Sir 25:13-26 (your point #7):
• His (mostly deplorable) comments should not be explained away or exaggerated; he simply reflects the kind of information the young Jewish male received at that time. (p. 505a)

https://archive.org/details/the-new-jerome-biblical-commentary/page/505/mode/1up

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Thank you for the book recommendation, that is a good point I will look into that. In regards to if scripture isinerrant regarding faith and morals only, after some further research, I have found that it is at the end of the day debated among theologians. I suggest that it is NOT limited to those matters, but i suppose I could be mistaken. See my background section in the original post (and the addition in bold) for my reasoning:

"Inerrancy is not limited to religious truths necessary for salvation or to religious matters. (The language of Dei Verbum 11 is taken directly from previous conciliar and papal teaching on the subject, wherein the footnotes to this section refer to Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus and Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu, documents which reject the idea that inerrancy is limited to religious matters. The theological commission at the Council stated that the term salutaris (“for the sake of our salvation”) doesn’t mean that only the salvific truths of the Bible are inspired or that the Bible as a whole isn’t the Word of God, see A. Grillmeier’s “The Divine Inspiration and Interpretation of Sacred Scripture” in H. Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. III, p. 213. Pope Pius XII condemned the actions of those who "ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals" in Providentissimus Deus)"

As I noted, I'm largely staying out of this discussion, as it's far from being my area of expertise. That said, I thank you for raising this point. Among some Catholics, there is the mentality that "the Church began in 1962" (or 1978, or even 2013), and everything prior to that either gets "memory-holed" or just forgotten about.

 

[po18guy]

It is best not to over-think matters of faith. Christ did not leave us orphans. Christians far superior to us have spent their lives assuring that the faith is handed on inviolate. 1.6 billion Orthodox and Catholics hold to the same 73 books and have since 33AD. The Orthodox include a few additional writings, but that is another issue.
Faith and morals. Scripture is a sure norm in all such matters. However, the New Covenant rules, guided by the Decalog. Over the ages, many erroneous letters and books were excluded. The Church tested them much like it does private revelation. 99% of any given writing or revelation may be pure and beautiful, but error is not from God and is therefore excluded. Remember here that the evil one is the most subtle of creatures. He is outside of time and will introduce error even if it takes a thousand years to lead the faithful astray.
Perhaps most of the books are accurate as to persons, dates, time and places, but we must remember that the scriptures were written over millennia. As well,the context in which the books were written is crucial. Many were written while Israel was in exile or captivity. This changes the style, content and even the purpose of the writing. God saw that His chosen were supported even when their world was filled with despair and desperation.
In some cases, and depending on their degree or oppression, some dates, times and place names were believed to have been "massaged" or even coded so as to encourage the Israelites without bringing the heavy hand of the oppressors down on them.
A couple of additional books to assist: Inside the Bible by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. and "Making Senses Out Of Scripture" by Mark P. Shea. Inside the Bible is a brief examination of the 73 books of the bible, giving the approximate dates of composition, author, content and theology. The second book focuses on the practical reading of scripture, noting the four senses in which it must be understood.

 

[po18guy]

For at least some prominent Catholic exegetes, inerrancy is clearly not an issue at the forefront of their concerns. Here is what Raymond Brown’s New Jerome Biblical Commentary says about a couple of the passages on your list:

On Sir 12:1-6 (your points #1 and 2):
• This pragmatic advice is typical of Ben Sira and the later rabbis, but it is at variance with the teaching of Jesus (p. 501a)

On Sir 25:13-26 (your point #7):
• His (mostly deplorable) comments should not be explained away or exaggerated; he simply reflects the kind of information the young Jewish male received at that time. (p. 505a)

https://archive.org/details/the-new-jerome-biblical-commentary/page/505/mode/1up

Not to derail, but I scrupulously avoid Fr. Brown's writings. He was rightly controversial and wrote that Catholic (and Orthodox) Bishops trace to Christ only in the nuanced sense. He was close to being a Protestant with a Roman collar, being the first Catholic to be tenured at the Protestant Union Theological Seminary. Of note, former Lutheran scholar and Catholic convert Dr. William Marshner calls Fr. Brown's book on the subject "horrendous."

 

[BartholomewB]

Of note, former Lutheran scholar and Catholic convert Dr. William Marshner calls Fr. Brown's book on the subject "horrendous."

I''d like to take a look at that. Which book is it?

Yes, Raymond Brown is controversial, to say the least. No doubt about it. Nevertheless, the words I quoted serve to illustrate the fact that Biblical inerrancy is by no means such a big thing for Catholics as it is for (some) Protestants.

 

[po18guy]

I''d like to take a look at that. Which book is it?

Yes, Raymond Brown is controversial, to say the least. No doubt about it. Nevertheless, the words I quoted serve to illustrate the fact that Biblical inerrancy is by no means such a big thing for Catholics as it is for (some) Protestants.

He speaks here in a video from the Coming Home Network. Specifically at the 33:00 mark. The entire vid is well worth watching.

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you, @po18guy. This evening I only had time for a quick look, but I’ll watch the whole video tomorrow morning.

I noticed that right at the beginning he mentions ”the Edict of Constantine that made us for the first time a tolerated religion within the Roman Empire.” It may be no more than a pedantic quibble, but some prominent historians would pounce on that assertion as a glaring mistake. In Timothy Barnes’ book, Constantine, Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire (link below), he quotes a German author, Otto Seeck, whose article had been published more than a hundred years earlier:

Otto Seeck demonstrated the utter impropriety of such a use of the phrase ["the Edict of Milan"] as long ago as 1891, and it is a sad commentary on the quality of most scholarly writing about Constantine since then that it is necessary to repeat what he said then. I translate the opening paragraph and the conclusion of this unjustly neglected article (Seeck 1891: 381, 386):

“In the year 313 Constantine guaranteed legal toleration for the Christians in the Roman Empire through the Edict of Milan.” So have we all learned at our school desks, and yet not a single word of that sentence is true. For the Christians did not obtain legal toleration for the first time in 313, but had already obtained it in 311; the originator of this legal measure was not Constantine, but Galerius; and there never was an ‘Edict of Milan’ which concerned itself with the question of the Christians.

Barnes T. Constantine. Dynasty, Religion And Power In The Later Roman Empire. Oxford. 2014 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Книга про период поздней Римской империи

archive.org

 

[po18guy]

Opinions abound. Not a major historian, but Barnes (and Seeck before him) seems to have a certain motive, the assertions almost hyperbolic or polemic. Why do we not see this idea presented in contra much earlier? Say, in the 16th century and the firestorm of debate which raged and yet rages? I note this regarding Galerius: "Although he was a staunch opponent of Christianity, he (Galerius) ended the Diocletianic Persecution by issuing the Edict of Serdica in 311." One wonders if there was any substance to his edict. He was not isolated from Constantine (who followed him) and thus, any decree made by Constantine was binding upon his conscience to observe. About Constantine, we read: "He played a pivotal role in elevating the status of Christianity in Rome, decriminalising Christian practice and ceasing Christian persecution." I note that in the lives of the Saints, we observe time and again the friendship or toleration granted by those in power, only to see it retracted and the martyrdom which followed.

We may have a distinction without a difference. Or a "paper tiger' 311 edict which lacked de facto substance. I go with Dr. Marshner, as he lived and deeply studied both sides and more.

 

[po18guy]

Aside from scripture and the catechism, "The Imitation of Christ" is all we need. Thomas á Kempis teaches, preaches, practices humility and meekness, which is extremely rare today. Actually, I see it as the foundation of following Christ rather than trying to lead him.