Edition Hide
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

9.

Nos ergo credimus etiam Mariam fuisse in cognatione David, quia scripturis eis credimus, quae utrumque dicunt, et Christum ex semine David secundum carnem et eius matrem Mariam non cum viro concumbendo, sed virginem. Quisquis itaque dicit Mariam ad consanguinitatem David non pertinuisse, manifestum est, quod istarum scripturarum tam excellenti auctoritati obluctetur. Ipse ergo convincat non eam pertinuisse ad semen David et hoc ostendat non ex quibuscumque litteris, sed ecclesiasticis, canonicis, catholicis. p. 714,28 Aliae quippe apud nos non habent ad has res ullum pondus auctoritatis; ipsae sunt enim, quas recipit et tenet ecclesia toto orbe diffusa, quae per illas est etiam prophetata et quemadmodum promissa, sic reddita. Ac per hoc illud, quod de generatione Mariae Faustus posuit, quod patrem habuerit ex tribu Levi sacerdotem quendam nomine Ioachim, canonicum non est, non me constringit. Sed etiamsi hoc crederem, ipsum potius Ioachim dicerem aliquo modo ad David sanguinem pertinuisse et aliquo modo ex tribu Iuda in tribu Levi fuisse adoptatum, vel ipsum vel eius aliquem progeneratorem, vel certe in tribu Levi ita natum, ut de stirpe David consanguinitatem aliquam duceret, sicut fieri potuisse idem Faustus fatetur, ut Maria de tribu Levi esset, quam tamen constat traditam viro, qui fuerit de stirpe David, id est de tribu Iuda, et dicit ita potuisse accipi Christum filium David [, si Maria filia Ioseph fuisset]; proinde si filia Ioseph nupsisset in tribu Levi, non absurde diceretur etiam filius David, quisquis de illa et in tribu Levi natus fuisset. p. 715,18 Ita si mater illius Ioachim, quem patrem Mariae Faustus commemorat, de tribu Iuda et genere David nupsit in tribu Levi, non immerito et Ioachim et Maria et filius Mariae etiam sic ex David semine veraciter perhibentur. Hoc ergo potius vel tale aliquid crederem, si illius apocryphae scripturae, ubi Ioachim pater Mariae legitur, auctoritate detinerer, quam mentiri evangelium, in quo scriptum est et Iesum Christum filium dei salvatorem nostrum ex semine David secundum carnem et per virginem Mariam procreatum. p. 715,27 Sufficit ergo nobis, quod scripturae, quae hoc dicunt et quibus credimus, ab inimicis nulla possunt falsitate convinci.

Translation Hide
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

9.

We believe that Mary, as well as Joseph, was of the family of David, because we believe the Scriptures, which assert both that Christ was of the seed of David after the flesh, and that His mother was the Virgin Mary, He having no human father. Therefore, whoever denies the relationship of Mary to David, evidently opposes the pre-eminent authority of these passages of Scripture; and to maintain this opposition he must bring evidence in support of his statement from writings acknowledged by the Church as canonical and catholic, not from any writings he pleases. In the matters of which we are now treating, only the canonical writings have any weight with us; for they only are received and acknowledged by the Church spread over all the world, which is itself a fulfillment of the prophecies regarding it contained in these writings. Accordingly, I am not bound to admit the uncanonical account of Mary's birth which Faustus adopts, that her father was a priest of the tribe of Levi, of the name of Joachim. But even were I to admit this account, I should still contend that Joachim must have in some way belonged to the family of David, and had somehow been adopted from the tribe of Judah into that of Levi; or if not he, one of his ancestors; or, at least, that while born in the tribe of Levi, he had still some relation to the line of David; as Faustus himself acknowledges that Mary, though belonging to the tribe of Levi, could be given to a husband of the tribe of Judah; and he expressly says that if Mary were Joseph's daughter, the name Son of David would be applicable to Christ. In this way, by the marriage of Joseph's daughter in the tribe of Levi, her son, though born in the tribe of Levi, might not improperly be called the Son of David. And so, if the mother of that Joachim, who in the passage quoted by Faustus is called the father of Mary, married in the tribe of Levi while she belonged to the tribe of Judah and to the family of David, there would thus be a sufficient reason for speaking of Joachim and Mary and Mary's son as belonging to the seed of David. If I felt obliged to pay any regard to the apocryphal scripture in which Joachim is called the father of Mary, I should adopt some such explanation as the above, rather than admit any falsehood in the Gospel, where it is written both that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and our Saviour, was of the seed of David after the flesh, and that He was born of the Virgin Mary. It is enough for us that the enemies of these Scriptures, which record these truths and which we believe, cannot prove against them any charge of falsehood.