Traduction Masquer
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

7.

But Faustus finds contradictions in the Gospels. Say, rather, that Faustus reads the Gospels in a wrong spirit, that he is too foolish to understand, and too blind to see. If you were animated with piety instead of being misled by party spirit, you might easily, by examining these passages, discover a wonderful and most instructive harmony among the writers. Who, in reading two narratives of the same event, would think of charging one or both of the authors with error or falsehood, because one omits what the other mentions, or one tells concisely, but with substantial agreement, what the other relates in detail, so as to indicate not only what was done, but also how it was done? This is what Faustus does in his attempt to impeach the truth of the Gospels; as if Luke's omitting some saying of Christ recorded in Matthew implied a denial on the part of Luke of Matthew's statement. There is no real difficulty in the case; and to make a difficulty shows want of thought, or of the ability to think. There is, indeed, a point in the narrative of the centurion which is discussed among believers, and on which objections are raised by unbelievers of no great learning, who prove their quarrelsomeness, when, after being instructed, they do not give up their errors. The point is, that Matthew says that the centurion came to Jesus "beseeching Him, and saying;" while Luke says that he sent to Jesus the elders of the Jews with this same request, that He would heal his servant who was sick; and that when He came near the house he sent others, through whom he said that he was not worthy that Jesus should come into his house, and that he was not worthy to come himself to Jesus. How, then, do we read in Matthew, "He came to Him, beseeching Him, and saying, My servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, and grievously tormented?" ¹ The explanation is, that Matthew's narrative is correct, but brief, mentioning the centurion's coming to Jesus, without saying whether he came himself or by others, or whether the words about his servant were spoken by himself or through others. But is it not common to speak of a person as coming near to a thing, although he may not reach it? And even the word reach, which is the strongest form of expression, is frequently used in cases where the person spoken of acts through others, as when we say he took his case to court, he reached the presence of the judge; or, again, he reached the presence of some man in power, although it may probably have been through his friends, and the person may not have seen him whose presence he is said to have reached. And from the word for to reach we give the name of Perventors to those who by ambitious arts gain access, either personally or through friends, to the, so to speak, inaccessible minds of the great. Are we, then, in reading to forget the common usage of speech? Or must the sacred Scripture have a language of its own? The cavils of forward critics are thus met by a reference to the usual forms of speech.

Edition Masquer
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

7.

Sed contraria inquit inter se scripta eorum reperiuntur. Maligni malo studio legitis, stulti non intellegitis, caeci non videtis. p. 793,5 Quid enim magnum erat ista diligenter inspicere et eorundem scriptorum magnam et salubrem invenire congruentiam, si vos contentio non perverteret et si pietas adiuvaret? Quis enim umquam duos historicos legens de una re scribentes utrumque vel utrumlibet eorum aut fallere aut falli arbitratus est, si unus eorum dixit, quod alius praetermisit, aut si alter aliquid brevius complexus est eandem tantum (tamen?) sententiam salvam integramque custodiens, alter autem tamquam membratim cuncta digessit, ut non solum, quid factum sit, verum etiam, quemadmodum factum sit, intimaret, sicut Faustus hinc evangeliorum veritati voluit calumniare, quia Matthaeus aliquid dixit, quod Lucas, cum idem narraret, dicere praetermisit, quasi negaverit Lucas dixisse Christum, quod eum scripsit dixisse Matthaeus. p. 793,18 Hinc omnino nulla umquam quaestio fuit neque hoc obici nisi ab omnino imprudentibus et nihil harum rerum considerare volentibus seu valentibus potest. Illud sane et requiri inter fideles et obici ab infidelibus solet, sed etiam ipsis vel parum eruditis vel nimis contentiosis, nisi admoniti resipuerint, quod Matthaeus dixit: accessit ad eum centurio rogans eum et dicens, Lucas autem, quod miserit ad eum seniores Iudaeorum hoc ipsum rogantes de puero eius, qui aegrotabat, ut eum sanaret, et cum adpropinquaret domui, misit alios, per quos diceret non se esse dignum, in cuius domum intraret Iesus, nec se ipsum dignum, ut veniret ad Iesum. Quomodo ergo secundum Matthaeum accessit ad eum rogans et dicens: puer meus iacet in domo paralyticus et male torquetur? p. 794,6 Hoc ergo intellegitur Matthaeum breviter sententiam ipsam veram integramque complexum dicentem, quod centurio accesserit ad Iesum, et non dicentem, utrum per se ipsum accesserit, an per alios et quod ei de puero suo illud dixerit, non exprimentem, utrum per se ipsum dixerit, an per alios. Quid enim? Nonne talibus locutionibus humana plena est consuetudo, cum dicimus aliquem ad aliquid multum accessisse, etiam quem nondum dicimus pervenisse? Nonne et ipsam perventionem, cui quasi videtur non esse quod addi iam possit, etiam per alios fieri usitatissime loquimur saepe dicendo: ‛egit ille causam suam, pervenit ad iudicem’ aut ‛pervenit ad illum vel illum potentem’, cum plerumque id faciat per amicos non viso eo prorsus, ad quem quisque dicitur pervenisse ? p. 794,19 Unde etiam tales homines, quicumque ad potentium quodam modo inaccessibiles animos sive per se ipsos sive per alios ambitionis arte pertingunt, iam etiam vulgo ‛perventores’ vocantur. Quid ergo, cum legimus, obliviscimur, quemadmodum loqui soleamus? An scriptura dei aliter nobiscum fuerat quam nostro more locutura? Et hoc quidem de communi loquendi consuetudine pervicacibus turbulentisque responderim.