Übersetzung ausblenden
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

2.

Since you have proved that Christ declared that Moses wrote of him, I should be very grateful if you would show me what he has written. I have searched the Scriptures, as we are told to do, and have found no prophecies of Christ, either because there are none, or because I could not understand them. The only escape from this perplexity was in one or other of two conclusions. Either this verse must be spurious, or Jesus a liar. As it is not consistent with piety to suppose God a liar, I preferred to attribute falsehood to the writers, rather than to the Author, of truth. Moreover, He Himself tells that those who came before him were thieves and robbers, which applies first of all to Moses. And when, on the occasion of His speaking of His own majesty, and calling Himself the light of the world, the Jews angrily rejoined, "Thou bearest witness of thyself, thy witness is not true," I do not find that He appealed to the prophecies of Moses, as might have been expected. Instead of this, as having no connection with the Jews, and receiving no testimony from their fathers, He replied: "It is written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one who bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent me beareth witness of me." ¹ He referred to the voice from heaven which all had heard: "This is my beloved Son, believe Him." I think it likely that if Christ had said that Moses wrote of Him, the ingenious hostility of the Jews would have led them at once to ask what He supposed Moses to have written. The silence of the Jews is a proof that Jesus never made such a statement.

Edition ausblenden
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

2.

Tibi sane insufficientes referam gratias, si quemadmodum ostendis, quia Christus Moysen de se scripsisse testatus sit, ita etiam illud doceas, quaenam sint ea quae scripsit. Nam ego quidem scripturas eius perscrutatus, ut iussum est, nullas ibidem de Christo prophetias inveni, sive quia nullae sunt, sive quia intellegere ipse non potui. Unde in ingenti positus aestu ratione cogebar in alterum e duobus, ut aut falsum pronuntiarem capitulum hoc, aut mendacem Iesum. Sed id quidem alienum pietatis erat deum existimare mentitum. Rectius ergo visum est scriptoribus ascribere falsitatem quam veritatis auctori mendacium, quippe cum et ipsum dicentem audirem fures fuisse et latrones omnes, qui venerunt ante se, qua sententia primum omnium video feriri Moysen. p. 441,14 Ad haec et cum maiestatem suam loquenti eidem, ubi se mundi lumen appellat, Iudaei indignantes reclamarent: Quia tu de te testificaris, testimonium tuum non est verum, non eum video prosecutum, ubi maxime locus exigebat, ut diceret de se prophetasse Moysen, sed tamquam revera alienus et nullum habens ex eorum patribus testimonium respondit: Nempe in lege vestra scriptum est, quia duorum hominum testimonium verum est. Ego sum qui testificor de me; et testificatur de me, qui me misit pater, illud eis commemorans, quod de caelo dictum omnes audierant: Hic est filius meus dilectissimus, credite illi. Necnon et illud mihi verisimile non videtur Iudaeos potuisse tacere, cum Christus diceret de se scripsisse Moysen, quin statim, utpote maligni et astuti, quaererent, quidnam illud esset, quod de se a Moyse scriptum putaret. p. 442,2 Sed et haec eorum omnifaria taciturnitas non minus Iesum nihil tale dixisse significat.