Edition ausblenden
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

2.

age, si libet, assensu communi scriptoribus damnatis defensionem suscipiamus legis et prophetarum. Legem autem nunc dico ego non circumcisionem nec sabbata et sacrificia ceteraque huiusmodi Iudaeorum, sed eam, quae vere sit lex, id est: Non occides, non moechaberis, non peiurabis et cetera. Cui quia olim diffamatae in gentibus, id est ex quo mundi huius creatura consistit, Hebraeorum scriptores irruentes tamquam lepram ac scabiem abominanda haec sua et turpissima praecepta commiscuerunt, quae ad peritomen spectant et sacrificia, age, si es certo et tu amicus legis, damna eos mecum, qui hanc violare ausi sunt hac commixtione inconvenientium eidem praeceptorum, quae praecepta nisi et vos legem non esse sciretis, nec legis partem, utique aut eadem servare niteremini professi iustitiam, aut vos coram fateremini esse non iustos. p. 592,8 Nunc vero et de illis, quae scelera prohibent mandatis, sollicita vobis est cura recte volentibus vivere, et de his, quae pertinent ad Iudaeos, nulla fit mentio, quod quatenus excusatum vobis erit, nisi eadem legem non esse constiterit. Denique si, sicut incenderis intolerabile convicium iudicans, si quis te neglegentem praecepti huius appellet, quo dictum est: Non occides vel: Non moechaberis, ita etiam exardesceres, si quis te et incircumcisum vocaret et neglegentem sabbati, erat intellegi procul dubio, quod esset utrumque lex et dei mandatum. Nunc vero et de illis superioribus laudem quaeris et gloriam, si ea conserves, et de his nullam eiusdem boni iacturam metuis, quia contemnis. p. 592,19 Quare constat haec, ut dixi, non esse legem, sed legis potius maculas et scabiem; quae si damnantur a nobis, damnantur ut[i] falsa, non ut legitima. Nec tangit convicium hoc legem nec legis auctorem deum, sed eos, qui hunc et illam nefariis suis religionibus inscripserunt. Ut autem interdum legis nos reverendum nomen, cum Iudaica praecepta persequimur, lacessamus, vestro fit vitio, qui inter Hebraicas institutiones et legem nullum vultis esse discrimen. Alioquin reddite legi propriam dignitatem, Israheliticas ab eadem turpitudines tamquam verrucas incidite, deformationis eius crimen scriptoribus imputate, et statim videbitis nos Iudaismi inimicos fuisse, non legis! Nomen est, quod vos decipit, quia cui iure debeat adscribi, non nostis. p. 593,6

Übersetzung ausblenden
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

2.

Supposing, then, that we agree in condemning the writers, we may succeed in vindicating the law and the prophets. By the law must be understood not circumcision, or Sabbaths, or sacrifices, or the other Jewish observances, but the true law, viz., Thou shall not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not bear false witness, and so on. To this law, promulgated throughout the world, that is, at the commencement of the present constitution of the world, the Hebrew writers did violence, by infecting it with the pollution of their disgusting precepts about circumcision and sacrifice. As a friend of the law, you should join with me in condemning the Jews for injuring the law by this mixture of unsuitable precepts. Plainly, you must be aware that these precepts are not the law, or any part of the law, since you claim to be righteous, though you make no attempt to keep the precepts. In seeking to lead a righteous life, you pay great regard to the commandments which forbid sinful actions, while you take no notice of the Jewish observances; which would be unjustifiable if they were one and the same law. You resent as a foul reproach being called negligent of the precept, "Thou shalt not kill," or "Thou shall not commit adultery." And if you showed the same resentment at being called uncircumcised, or negligent of the Sabbath, it would be evident that you considered both to be the law and the commandment of God. In fact, however, you consider the honor and glory of keeping the one no way endangered by disregard of the other. It is plain, as I have said, that these observances are not the law, but a disfigurement of the law. If we condemn them, it is not as being genuine, but as spurious. In this condemnation there is no reproach of the law, or of God its author, but only of those who published their shocking superstitions under these names. If we sometimes abuse the venerable name of law in attacking the Jewish precepts, the fault is yours, for refusing to distinguish between Hebrew observances and the law. Only restore to the law its proper dignity, by removing these foul Israelitish blots; grant that these writers are guilty of disfiguring the law, and you will see at once that we are the enemies not of the law, but of Judaism. You are misled by the word law; for you do not know to what that name properly belongs.