Übersetzung ausblenden
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

4.

But Faustus has a proof to show that Paul changed his mind, and, in writing to the Corinthians, corrected what he had written to the Romans; or else that he never wrote the passage which appears as his, about Jesus Christ being born of the seed of David according to the flesh. And what is this proof? If the passage, he says, in the Epistle to the Romans is true, "the Son of God, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," what he says to the Corinthians cannot be true, "Henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more." We must therefore show that both these passages are true, and not opposed to one another. The agreement of the manuscripts proves both to be genuine. In some Latin versions the word "born" ¹ is used instead of "made," ² which is not so literal a rendering, but gives the same meaning. For both these translations, as well as the original, teach that Christ was of the seed of David after the flesh. We must not for a moment suppose that Paul corrected himself on account of a change of opinion. Faustus himself felt the impropriety and impiety of such an explanation, and preferred to say that the passage was spurious, instead of that Paul was mistaken.

Edition ausblenden
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

4.

Sed certa inquit ratio est, qua ostendam Paulum apostolum aut proficiendo mutasse sententiam et scribentem ad Corinthios emendasse, quod scripserat ad Romanos, aut omnino non scripsisse, quod tamquam eius profertur, «filium dei ex semine Dauid secundum carnem». p. 319,15 Qua tandem ratione id ostendit? Quia non potest inquit utrumque verum esse, et quod in epistula est ad Romanos:«De filio suo, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem», et quod ait ad Corinthios:« Itaque nos amodo neminem novimus secundum carnem; et si noveramus secundum carnem Christum, sed nunc iam non novimus». Restat ergo, ut nos demonstremus, quam possit utrumque verum esse et quam sibi haec duo non sint contraria. Unum quippe eorum non esse Pauli nullo modo possumus dicere, quia nulla in eo variat codicum auctoritas. Etsi enim in quibusdam latinis exemplaribus non legitur factus, sed natus ex semine David, cum graeca factus habeant, unde non ad verbum, sed ad sententiam transferre voluit dicendo natum latinus interpres, tamen Christum ex semine David esse secundum carnem, omnium librorum atque linguarum concordat auctoritas. p. 320,3 In hoc autem Paulum aliquando errasse et proficiendo mutasse sententiam, absit ut dicamus, quod etiam ipse Faustus sensit quam improbe atque impie diceretur, maluitque dicere Pauli epistulam aliorum falsitate corruptam quam ipsius errore vitiosam.