Übersetzung ausblenden
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

1.

Faustus said: Do I believe the gospel? Certainly. Do I therefore believe that Christ was born? Certainly not. It does not follow that because I believe the gospel, as I do, I must therefore believe that Christ was born. This I do not believe; because Christ does not say that He was born of men, and the gospel, both in name and in fact, begins with Christ's preaching. As for the genealogy, the author himself does not venture to call it the gospel. For what did he write? "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the Son of David." ¹ The book of the generation is not the book of the gospel. It is more like a birth-register, the star confirming the event. Mark, on the other hand, who recorded the preaching of the Son of God, without any genealogy, begins most suitably with the words, "The gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." It is plain that the genealogy is not the gospel. Matthew himself says, that after John was put in prison, Jesus began to preach the gospel of the kingdom; so that what is mentioned before this is the genealogy, and not the gospel. Why did not Matthew begin with, "The gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God," but because he thought it sinful to call the genealogy the gospel? Understand, then, what you have hitherto overlooked --the distinction between the genealogy and the gospel. Do I then admit the truth of the gospel? Yes; understanding by the gospel the preaching of Christ. I have plenty to say about the generations too, if you wish. But you seem to me now to wish to know not whether I accept the gospel, but whether I accept the generations.

Edition ausblenden
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

1.

Faustus dixit: Accipis evangelium?
Et maxime.
Proinde ergo et natum accipis Christum?
Non ita est. p. 253,19 Neque enim sequitur, ut, si evangelium accipio, idcirco et natum accipiam Christum.
Cur?
Quia evangelium quidem a praedicatione Christi et esse coepit et nominari, in quo tamen ipse nusquam se natum ex hominibus dicit.

At vero genealogia adeo non est evangelium, ut nec ipse eius scriptor ausus fuerit eam evangelium nominare.

Quid enim scripsit?Liber generationis Iesu Christi filii David. Non ergo Liber evangelii Iesu Christi sed Liber generationis, quippe ubi et stella inducitur, quae confirmat genesim, ut recte ‘genesidium’ hoc magis nuncupari possit quam evangelium.

Ac denique Marcus, qui generationem scribere non curavit, sed praedicationem tantum filii dei, quod est evangelium, vide quam sit competenter exorsus: Evangelium, inquit, Iesu Christi filii dei, ut hinc satis abundeque appareat genealogiam non esse evangelium. p. 254,6

Namque et in ipso Matthaeo post inclusum Iohannem in carcerem tunc legitur Iesum coepisse praedicare evangelium regni.

Ergo quicquid ante hoc narratum est, genealogian esse constat, non evangelium.

Alioquin quid impediebat et Matthaeum ponere evangelium Iesu Christi filii dei, nisi quia improbum putavit genealogiam vocare evangelium?

Quapropter si iam tibi distinctum satis est quod usque nunc ignorasti, longe aliud esse evangelium quam genealogian, scias me, ut dixi, accipere evangelium, id est praedicationem Christi.

De quo quicquid iam perrogare volueris, omissis generationibus quaere!

Aut si et de ipsis conferre est animus, non equidem recuso, cum sit mihi magna et de his ad respondendum copia. Sed tu disce interrogare, quod primum est. Videris enim mihi nunc scire velle, non utrum evangelium accipiam, sed utrum generationes. p. 254,21