Bellarmine makes the exception:
They differ from the manner of speaking common to canonical Scripture.
§ 232. [III] The second book clearly betrays that it was not written with the prophetic spirit but with a human spirit. (1) It asks the reader’s pardon: “Indeed, if that (which I had written) has been done well as befits history, that is what I wanted; but if it is not well done, you must forgive me. For just as it is harmful to drink wine always or to drink water always, while using them together is a delight, so the style, if it is always exact, will not please those who read it” (2 Maccabees 15:38-39). Such preparatory statements [
] and protestations, however, are alien to the Holy Spirit.
Bellarmine makes this exception (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 15): “The author is not asking for forgiveness for his mistakes (indeed, he knew there were none) but for his less than polished way of speaking, even as Paul admits in 2 Cor. 11:6 that he is unskilled in speaking.” We respond. Neither Paul nor any other canonical writer asks for forgiveness if he has written something inelegantly or poorly. After all, they know that everything they have written has come from the Holy Spirit, that in this work of his they have been his amanuenses. Therefore they have no need to ask forgiveness for themselves, either in things or in words. In the aforementioned passage, Paul by no means excuses himself for having written feebly and sparsely or for having accomplished less than he had intended. Rather, he calls himself “unskilled in language” [
] because he appeared thus to the false apostles because he did not use subtleties of speech. He admits that one must not compare him with the false apostles in terms of human wisdom or eloquence.
(2) The author of 2 Maccabees complains about the difficulty of this work and says: “For ourselves who have taken up this work to abridge it, it is not an easy task. In fact, we have assumed a job that keeps us awake nights and makes us sweat,” etc. Nothing, however, is difficult, laborious, or bothersome to the Holy Spirit, who is the principal author of the canonical books.
Bellarmine makes the exception:
God would be with the prophets in one way, with the historical writers in another way. To the former He revealed future things, and at the same time, He saw to it that they did not mix in anything false while writing. To the latter He did not always reveal what would be written but merely stirred them to write the things they remembered of what they had seen or heard. At the same time He saw to it that they wrote nothing false, but this assistance did not exclude their labor (Luke 1:3).
We respond. Sacred historians and the canonical writers indeed used effort and diligence in their writing, but this was neither difficult nor troublesome for them. Thus nowhere do we read that they complained about the trouble of their effort. Therefore though a difference can be established between prophets and historians with respect to revelation, nevertheless with respect to writing they are exactly the same because both were amanuenses of the Holy Spirit, at whose dictation they wrote their books. As the Holy Spirit revealed to the prophets what to write, so He suggested to the historians and recalled to their memory what to write (John 14:26). He excludes all trouble from recollective writing in the case of the historians just as He excludes it from apocalyptic writing in the case of the prophets.
(3) The author of 2 Maccabees admits that he wants to consign to an abridgment the five books of Jason of Cyrene (2 Maccabees 2:24). Yet the Holy Spirit was never accustomed to consign to a summary the history of a secular writer.