Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 7
7 The genealogical question is again taken up and argued on both sides PL 42, 237
1. Faustus said: You ask why I do not believe in the genealogy of Jesus. There are many reasons; but the principal is, that He never declares with His own lips that He had an earthly father or descent, but on the contrary, that he is not of this world, that He came forth from God the Father, that He descended from heaven, that He has no mother or brethren except those who do the will of His Father in heaven. Besides, the framers of these genealogies do not seem to have known Jesus before His birth or soon after it, so as to have the credibility of eye-witnesses of what they narrate. They became acquainted with Jesus as a young man of about thirty years of age, if it is not blasphemy to speak of the age of a divine being. Now the question regarding a witness is always whether he has seen or heard what he testifies to. But the writers of these genealogies never assert that they heard the account from Jesus Himself, nor even the fact of His birth; nor did they see Him till they came to know Him after his baptism, many years after the time of His birth. To me, therefore, and to every sensible man, it appears as foolish to believe this account, as it would be to call into court a blind and deaf witness.
2. Augustin replied: As regards what Faustus calls his principal reason for not receiving the genealogy of Jesus Christ, a complete refutation is found in the passages formerly quoted, where Christ declares Himself to be the Son of man, and in what we have said of the identity of the Son of man with the Son of God: that in His Godhead He has no earthly descent, while after the flesh He is of the seed of David, as the apostle teaches. We are to believe, therefore, that He came forth from the Father, that He descended from heaven, and also that the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst men. If the words, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" are quoted to show that Christ had no earthly mother or descent, it follows that we must believe that His disciples, whom He here teaches by His own example to set no value on earthly relationship, as compared with the kingdom of heaven, had no fathers, because Christ says to them, "Call no man father upon earth; for one is your Father, even God." What He taught them to do with reference to their fathers, He Himself first did in reference to His own mother and brethren; as in many other things He condescended to set us an example, and to go before that we might follow in His footsteps. Faustus’ principal objection to the genealogy fails completely; and after the defeat of this invincible force, the rest is easily routed. He says that the apostles who declared Christ to be the Son of man as well as the Son of God are not to be believed, because they were not present at the birth of Christ, whom they joined when He had reached manhood, nor heard of it from Christ Himself. Why then do they believe John when he says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made," and such passages, which they agree to, without understanding them? Where did John see this, or did he ever hear it from the Lord Himself? In whatever way John learned this, those who narrate the nativity may have learned also. Again, how do they know that the Lord said, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" If on the authority of the evangelist, why do they not also believe that the mother and the brethren of Christ were seeking for Him? They believe that Christ said these words, which they misunderstand, while they deny a fact resting on the same authority. Once more, if Matthew could not know that Christ was born, because he knew Him only in His manhood, how could Manichæus, who lived so long after, know that He was not born? They will say that Manichæus knew this from the Holy Spirit which was in him. Certainly the Holy Spirit would make him speak the truth. But why not rather believe what Christ’s own disciples tell us, who were personally acquainted with Him, and who not only had the gift of inspiration to supply defects in their knowledge, but in a purely natural way obtained information of the birth of Christ, and of His descent, when the event was fresh in memory? And yet he dares to call the apostles deaf and blind. Why were you not deaf and blind, to prevent you from learning such profane nonsense, and dumb too, to prevent you from uttering it?
————————————
FAUSTUS dixit: Quare non credis in genealogiam Jesu? Multae quidem sunt causae, sed palmaris illa, quia nec ipse ore suo usquam se fatetur patrem habere, aut genus in terra: sed e contra, quia non sit de hoc mundo, quia a Patre Deo processerit, quia descenderit de coelo, quia non sibi sint mater et fratres, nisi qui fecerint voluntatem Patris sui, qui in coelis est. Ad haec, illi ipsi qui has ei genealogias ascribunt, non eum ante nativitatem cognovisse videntur: sed neque statim ut natus est, quo crederentur ea scripsisse, quae erga eum oculis suis viderint gesta; sed juveni jam et maturo conjuncti sunt ei, id est, annorum ferme triginta: siquidem et aetas ascribi divinis potest sine blasphemia. Quare cum in omni testimonio veritatis hoc semper quaeri soleat, utrumne quis audieret, an viderit; isti vero nec audisse se fateantur ab ipso generationis hunc ordinem, aut quia omnino sit natus; nec vidisse oculis, quia longo post tempore, id est, post Baptismum cognoverint eum: mihi et omni recte judicanti, tam stultum videtur hoc credere, quam si quis caecum et surdum testem in judicium vocet.
AUGUSTINUS respondit: Quam dicit palmarem causam, cur non accipiat genealogiam Jesu Christi, ibi apertissime victus ostenditur, legentibus quae supra diximus de Filio hominis, quod tam crebro se Christus esse testatur , et de Filio Dei, quomodo idem ipse sit et filius hominis ; quomodo secundum divinitatem non habeat genus in terra, secundum carnem autem sit ex semine David, sicut apostolica doctrina testatur . Unde oportet eum credi et intelligi, et a Patre exisse , et de coelo venisse , et hic tamen Verbum carnem factum inter homines habitasse . Quod si propterea putant eum non habuisse in terra matrem vel genus, quia dixit, Quae mihi mater, vel qui fratres ? superest ut etiam discipulos ejus, quibus hoc exemplum in se ipso praebuit, ut terreni generis necessitudinem propter regnum coelorum contemnerent, affirment non habuisse patres, quia dixit eis, Ne vobis dicatis patrem in terra; unus enim est Pater vester Deus . Quod ergo istos de patribus docuit, hoc ipse de matre et fratribus prior fecit: sicut et alia multa, in quibus se nobis, ut eum imitaremur, praebere, et, ut sequeremur, praeire dignatus est. Quapropter iste qui in eo quod putat, palmare sic vincitur, quam jaceat et involvatur in caeteris animadvertendum est. Quippe qui propterea dicit non credendum esse Apostolis, qui ejus non solum divinam, sed etiam humanam nativitatem annuntiaverunt, quia postea juveni adhaeserunt, et nec viderunt eum natum, nec se hoc ab illo audisse dixerunt. Cur ergo credunt Joanni dicenti, In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum; hoc erat in principio apud Deum; omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil , et caetera quae illis quamvis non intelligentibus tamen placent? Dicant ubi hoc Joannes viderit, aut ubi se hoc ab ipso Domino audisse dixerit. Quidquid enim dixerint, unde hoc Joannes scire potuerit, inde credimus etiam omnes annuntiatores nativitatis Christi, id quod annuntiaverunt scire potuisse. Deinde quaero, unde credant dixisse Dominum, Quae mihi mater, aut qui fratres? Si quia hoc Evangelista narravit, cur ei non credunt et illud, Quia mater ejus et fratres quaerebant eum ? Si autem hoc mentitus est quod nolunt credere, quomodo ei credunt Christum dixisse quod nolunt intelligere? Deinde si Christum natum, quia jam juveni adhaeserat, non potuit nosse Matthaeus, unde potuit Christum non natum, post tot annos natus nosse Manichaeus? Dicturi sunt: Spiritus sanctus hoc sciebat qui erat in Manichaeo. Ille sane si Spiritus sanctus esset, vera dixisset. Sed cur non potius de Christo discipulis ejus, qui etiam corporaliter ei adhaeserunt, credimus; qui non solum per Spiritum sanctum ab ipso impertitum scire potuerunt, si quid lateret in rebus humanis, sed tam recenti et praesenti memoria, etiam solo humano sensu, genus Christi secundum carnem et totam originem collegerunt? Et tamen caeci et surdi testes dicuntur Apostoli. Utinam tu non tantum caecus et surdus fuisses, ne tam vana et sacrilega disceres; sed etiam mutus, ne talia diceres!