De locis theologicis

WHERE THE ARGUMENTS OF CHAPTER SIXTEEN ARE REFUTED

Response to the first argument. The supports of reason and testimony set out in the previous chapter should be enough to confirm and defend the truth. Now, however, we must refute the arguments our adversaries used in opposition. The defense against the first argument, by which the truth was attacked, is easy and straightforward. I admit that not every passage of Scripture needed an explicit, distinct revelation of its own in order to be written by the sacred authors; nevertheless, I truly and rightly maintain that each passage was written through the special prompting and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. “He,” Christ says, “will teach you all things and will bring to your remembrance all things whatsoever I have said to you.” He will also bring to mind things you have forgotten and things you have heard with your own ears; he will also bring to mind things that might otherwise have come to mind naturally and spontaneously. He will suggest not only supernatural things but also natural things, including things that would otherwise be written in a human manner. “All things,” he says, “whatsoever I have said to you.” The Apostle also says: “We have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we may know the things given to us by God; and these we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in the teaching of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” “For the spiritual person judges all things,” as it is written, “Who has known the mind of the Lord? But we have the mind of Christ.” Behold, the apostles, in whose name Paul speaks, received the Spirit so that they might deliver the teaching of the Spirit, through whom they judged all things in the mind of Christ. Surely those living creatures

full of eyes on every side, set out to represent the four Evangelists, we may rightly and most justly apply to all the sacred writers. The sacred authors therefore did not write with blind eyes; the Spirit himself guided the pen of those writing, so that they would not slip as they wrote. For when the Apostle had said in the secunda ad Corinthios epistola certain things that could be said in a human way by a leader of the Church, he immediately added: “Are you seeking proof of Christ, who speaks in me?” The holy men of God therefore wrote every part of Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit. “Do not think beforehand,” he says, “how or what you will speak, for what you are to speak will be given to you in that hour.” The same command was surely given to the sacred authors: not to think beforehand how or what they should write, for what they should write was given to them in that hour. They did not have this gift of the Holy Spirit throughout their whole lives, but only while their tongue was the pen of a swiftly writing scribe. But Christ never spoke a single word that did not proceed from the Holy Spirit. For, to use the language of the schools, the most sacred tongue of Christ Jesus was the perpetual instrument of the divinity. From this the certain collapse is evident of the argument with which we were afterward confirming the contrary position. For we do not assert that every part of Sacred Scripture was published through an immediate revelation of the Holy Spirit, properly called a revelation. On the contrary, Luke himself wrote down what he had received from the apostles, as he testifies in the prooemium of his Gospel; and Clement in book 6 of the Dispositionum, as cited by Eusebius in Eccles. hist., book 2, ch. 15; Papias, cited by that same Eusebius in the same book, and in book 8, final chapter; Origen in book 1 of his Comment. in Matth., as Eusebius reports in book 6, ch. 18; Eusebius himself in book 3, ch. 4; Jerome in De viris illustribus, under Mark; and Irenaeus in Adversum haereses, book 3, ch. 1, attest that Mark wrote down what he had learned from Peter at the disciples' request. Therefore, whether Matthew and John reported what they had seen or Mark and Luke what they had heard, they did not need a new revelation of the Holy Spirit; they nevertheless needed the special direction of the Holy Spirit. In this way we have answered the first argument. Response to the second argument. Let the second argument be answered as follows. Paul calls something a command or counsel of the Lord in that passage because the Lord Christ himself either commanded or counseled it in the Gospel. Paul himself indicates that he considered his own counsel to be the counsel of the Holy Spirit when he says: “She will be more blessed if she remains so, according to my counsel; and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” The confirmation of this argument is drawn above all from the answers to the first argument. For what the sacred authors wrote falls into two different categories. Some things they knew only by supernatural revelation, and Basil says that these came from the Holy Spirit. Other things they knew by natural knowledge, having seen them with their eyes or even touched them with their hands. As we said a little earlier, these did not need supernatural light or explicit revelation in order to be written, but they did need the special presence and help of the Holy Spirit so that, although they were human matters known by natural means, they might nevertheless be written by divine aid without any error. These are the matters about which, according to Basil, Paul and the prophets spoke on their own. Some of the ancients also commonly quote not only Origen's opinions but his very words, which should certainly be understood just as Origen himself understood them. Origen, however, meant this point

rather than asserted it. For he does not persist in that opinion. Ambrose too, in his commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where the passage properly belongs, most clearly agreed with us. Response to the third argument. The answer to the objection raised in the third place is brief and not difficult. For there “to repent” does not mean to change one's mind, but to grieve. A father grieves when he sees his children grieving, but rejoices when he understands that their grief has been for their salvation. What is added is also very easy to explain. Paul himself explains how he should be understood when he says: “What I say, I do not say according to God, but as if in foolishness.” A little earlier he says: “I say again, let no one think me foolish; otherwise, receive me as though I were foolish.” And in chapter 12 of the same epistle: “If I wish to boast, I shall not be foolish, for I shall speak the truth”; and a little later: “I have become foolish; you compelled me.” What, then—wise and foolish? He was truly wise, but as if foolish, seeming to assume the role of a foolish person and to boast of himself. For praising oneself is a mark of a foolish person. Yet what seemed foolish was the wisdom of God, so that the Apostle boasted not willingly but under compulsion, not out of vanity but out of love. This seemingly foolish boasting, then, came from the Holy Spirit. Nor is what follows difficult either. Paul had not spoken incautiously, as someone said; rather, so that no one might interpret his praise as containing arrogance or vanity, he teaches that he glories not in himself but in the Lord: “Not I,” he says, “but the grace of God with me.” A similar case is when the Lord called the Gospel teaching his own and immediately added: “My teaching is not mine, but belongs to the Father who sent me.” In this way, when Paul had truly said that he labored more than all the others, he adds—and truly adds—that he had not labored more than all the others, and so on. Response to the fourth argument. Some answer the fourth argument by saying that the authority of the Church is so great that it has even changed certain things in Sacred Scripture. They give as examples the Sabbath; eating what was strangled and blood; baptism in the name of Jesus; the Eucharist, which Christ gave after the meal but which the Church gives to those fasting; Christ's giving it under both kinds, whereas the Church gives it to the laity under one; and Paul's allowing marriages between people of different faiths, which the Church disapproved. Thus, although Scripture's law is that someone who has had two wives should not be ordained a bishop, the Church could nevertheless relax this law in part or even abolish it altogether. This response does indeed offer a way that leads to conformity with and preservation of the Church's authority. If we follow it, we will never go astray; we will follow what is certain and safe, what is suited to the unity of the faithful, and what is forceful and strong. But we must take care not to seem rustic rather than theological if, in refuting arguments, we flee to the Church as if to an altar. To me, then, another answer seems much more learned and more accurate, and it rests on a twofold division. One part of this division is as follows: some precepts of Scripture were temporary—that is, they were to be observed for a time, according to the circumstances of place, time, persons, and other matters and causes. These precepts came to an end of themselves at a predetermined time, even without any intervening authority of the Church. For what was established as a necessity of the time must also cease when the necessity has ceased; 1, q. 1, “What Was Established for a Necessity.” This category included observance of the Sabbath and all the other things properly belonging to the old law; such too was the law about what was sacrificed, blood, and what was strangled; such also was the apostolic practice of baptism in the name of Jesus.

Other precepts, however, are eternal; the reason for observing them is not brief and temporary, but perpetual and everlasting. By “everlasting,” according to the manner of Scripture, I mean what will always be, not what always has been. This category includes all the precepts of nature contained in both the Old and New Testaments; it also includes the law, “Unless someone is born again,” and so on, and the similar one concerning the Sacrament of Penance. Again, some precepts of the apostles written in Sacred Scripture were received by them from Christ to be proclaimed to the nations, according to these words: “Baptize all nations, teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you.” Other precepts were not enjoined on the apostles by Christ, but they themselves handed them on to the peoples after Christ had been taken up into heaven. These are nevertheless called commands of Christ and God, not only because they were promulgated through the power they had received from the Lord, but also because they were issued at the special prompting of the Spirit of God. “It seemed good,” they say, “to the Holy Spirit and to us, to impose nothing further,” and so on. Citing these words in lib. 5 Contra Eunomium, Basil says: “It seemed good to the Spirit, from whom, as Lord, the laws of the Church were given; but to the apostles, as ministers, through whom the decrees were issued.” Christ himself teaches that these precepts may also be called his when he says: “Whoever hears you hears me; whoever rejects you rejects me.” There is, however, a significant difference between these commands of Scripture. The first commands, handed down by the Lord to the apostles, are precepts proper to the new law; the Church can neither dissolve them nor dispense anyone from them, just as it cannot do so with the law of nature. We gave the reason for this in our Relection on Penance: Christ the Lord, author of the Gospel law, issued no precepts directly except those that were supremely necessary for salvation. The later commands, however, were properly human and ecclesiastical, namely, those issued by the apostles as they governed the Church, just as other commands were later issued by the successive leaders of the Church, though with unequal authority. For none of the apostles could err in their commands; each of them was directed in a very special way by the Holy Spirit when promulgating laws for the Church. Later prelates, however, do not have this special presence of the Holy Spirit except when they assemble in the name of Christ and the Church. This happens in general Councils. We shall discuss this more fully later, in book 5. Although these commands were apostolic and are also written in Sacred Scripture, the Supreme Pontiff can free his subjects from them either in part or entirely. Even if there were no other reason, this is how the apostolic law about abstaining from blood and what was strangled could be abolished by the power of the Church. Yet, as we said, that law admonished the nations not to abuse their liberty in a way that offended their brothers. The apostles prescribed which matters could cause them to offend their brothers, insofar as was useful for the time. Since a law must be judged by its purpose, it is understood to have been abolished when there was no longer any danger from the offenses and disputes the apostles wished to prevent. These points having been established, I think the fourth argument is easily refuted. For Paul's precept against ordaining as bishop someone who had been married twice belongs to the second category, that is, it is human and ecclesiastical, and the Church may therefore rightly release a person from its bond. Yet it has done so only once or twice, and only under a grave and pressing necessity. In the Church this is permitted only to the Supreme Pontiff; bishops are not permitted to dispense with bigamists against the Apostle, as Lucius and Innocent teach.

St. Augustine, however, was speaking about laws of the first kind, which, if Christ himself had issued them as truly and properly divine and evangelical laws, no one could or would dare to change. I think I have said enough to refute the fourth argument. Response to the fifth argument. The fifth is refuted as follows. First, some think that either the malice of the ungodly or a copyist's error caused “Jeremiah” to be written instead of “Zechariah.” Eusebius held this view in lib. 10 Demonstr. Evangel., demonstr. 4. Origen did not dislike it, and Cajetan thought it plausible. Jerome certainly is not foreign to this opinion; indeed, in Psalm. 77 he says that “Jeremiah” was substituted for “Zechariah” through a copyist's error. Others think that the same statement was once found in Jeremiah too, but that not all of Jeremiah's prophecies are now extant. Augustine also thinks in libro De consen. Evangelist. 3, cap. 7, that since Jeremiah and Zechariah wrote by the same Spirit, it makes no difference if one attributes one man's statement to the other; indeed, this was done by a special plan of the Holy Spirit so that all the sacred books would be believed to have been written by one author. What has been objected to the Evangelist Mark usually seems frivolous to those who regularly compare the Latin edition with the Greek manuscripts. Since they do not read “As it is written in Isaiah,” but “As it is written in the Prophets,” they say that the argument is weak because it rests on a corrupted text. It can easily be shown that Theophylact subscribed to this view, for he reads “in the Prophets,” not “in Isaiah.” Jerome too, in his Comment. super 3 Matthaei caput, subscribes to this opinion, saying: “We think the name of Isaiah was added through a copyist's error, as we can prove in other passages as well; or else one passage was made out of different testimonies of Scripture.” Jerome therefore thinks that whichever of the two you accept, the passage is corrupt. He believed the same of Psalm. 13. Erasmus, although he admits that all the Greek manuscripts he himself was able to see have έν προφήταις (“in the Prophets”), nevertheless approves our reading and asserts that the Greeks changed the Greek text. Jerome himself too, in his letter to Pammachius, De opt. gen. inter., approves only the reading we have and does not even mention the other reading there. Porphyry also accuses Mark the Evangelist in book 14 of being an ignorant and uneducated man who did not even know his own letters, since he refers to something as written by one and the same prophet when it was written not by one but by two. In answering this slander, Chrysostom does not plead that the manuscripts are faulty or that the passage was corrupted by an ungodly person; he plainly agrees that it was read exactly as Porphyry quoted it in his objection. From this it is clear that before the time of Chrysostom and Jerome all the Greek and Latin manuscripts agreed with our edition. Here I cannot help laughing at these modern translators, who so readily and confidently correct Latin texts from faulty Greek manuscripts, making good texts faulty. Surely they will endure our making sport of them here, since they are accustomed to make sport of us; indeed, they should rather allow us to do in other passages what their leader Erasmus does here with full justification and strong reasoning, and to venerate the Latin edition while setting Greek manuscripts aside. But, to return to the point from which the discussion wandered, since this argument is not as easy as these men thought, it must be refuted with greater force and skill. The words “As it is written in Isaiah” do not refer to all that follows, but only to “the voice of one crying in the wilderness,” and so on. The words “Behold, I send my angel,” and so on, the Evangelist added as his own, which he was right to do, although the same words are found in another prophet. For when I cite Aristotle, it is not necessary that all the words that follow be Aristotle's; rather,

I may add some things of my own, especially if they greatly help explain Aristotle. Likewise, since the Evangelist's words “Behold, I send my angel,” and so on, were an explanation of Isaiah's words, nothing is taken away from Mark's trustworthiness if he explained and embellished Isaiah's testimony by adding such words. A servant is not unfaithful if, by adding some ornament of words, he enhances his master's gift. This is Chrysostom's answer. Jerome, however, says that the Evangelists were concerned not with the words but with the meaning; everything that follows in Mark was written by Isaiah not according to the words but according to the meaning. For the one who plainly said, “the voice of one crying,” and so on, understood that it was the same angel who would prepare the way for the Lord. This answer is especially approved by Bede in his commentar. super Marcum. As for the further charge that Mark is false because he wrote that Christ was crucified at the third hour, I see four opinions on this matter, none of which yet has greater probability. The first is held by those who observe that John does not write that Pilate sat on the judgment seat at about the sixth hour of the day, but that it was about the sixth hour of the Preparation. One may begin counting the day from one point and the Preparation from another. For it is reasonable that Jews were accustomed to begin preparing for the Passover before the start of the day, that is, before sunrise. If Christians begin to prepare certain necessities long before dawn on the vigils of such feasts, one should believe that the Jews did the same, and all the more so: they had to prepare not only unleavened bread for many days but many other things too, not only for the feast day but also for the Passover evening. There are others who follow Augustine and think Mark was speaking not of the crucifixion by the soldiers but of the crucifixion by the Jews. They above all crucified Christ, as Peter told them in Act. 4. Thus, to show that the Lord Jesus was crucified not so much by the soldiers, who merely performed the service assigned to them by the governor, as by the Jews, after the Evangelist had described the soldiers' action, saying, “And when they had crucified him, they divided,” and so on, he then recalled the perpetrators of the Lord's crucifixion to the voice that demanded the blood of the just, in these words: “It was the third hour, and they crucified him.” For he did not think it necessary to state the hour of the soldiers' crucifixion, since it was commonly known. Others believe that they can adequately avoid this absurdity by saying that Christ was crucified between the third and the sixth hour; and that his hour of death was named from either endpoint, as intermediate times often are: the third hour from one end, the sixth from the other. But this answer has an evident problem. If someone says that what happens at the fifth hour happens at either the fourth or the sixth, that is indeed an improper way of speaking, but it can nevertheless be tolerated to some extent. But neither usage nor reason allows us to say that what happens in the fifth hour happens in the third or second. Others therefore propose that, just as the night was divided into four watches, the Jews divided the day into four periods and parts. The first began at dawn and lasted until the third hour of the day; it was called the first, because it began at the first hour. The second began at the third hour and lasted until the sixth; it was called the third hour because it began at the third hour. The third part of the day began at the sixth hour and lasted until the ninth; it was likewise called the sixth hour after the hour at which it began. Finally, the fourth watch and part of the day began at the ninth hour and lasted until sunset; it was called either the ninth hour or evening.

If these things are true, the Evangelists will now agree very well. For Christ was crucified near the end of the second period, which was called the third hour—that is, while that hour had not yet elapsed. A little earlier, at about the sixth hour, Pilate sat on the judgment seat, still within that same hour and period of the day. It was truly the third hour, but it was close to the sixth. This opinion will be much the most probable if it can be proved that the Jews were accustomed to divide the day into periods in this way. In the account of the Passion, the hours of dawn, the third, sixth, and ninth are mentioned by name; all the intervening hours are passed over in complete silence. But the parable of the householder who hires laborers for his vineyard, which these people also assert in support of their position, not only does not help but even obstructs it, since there the Lord mentions not only the first, third, sixth, and ninth hours but also the eleventh. This would be absurd if the fourth part of the day, that is, the ninth hour, included all the remaining time of that same day. Indeed, to put the matter briefly and plainly, since he explicitly mentions the eleventh hour, which fell between the ninth and twelfth, it is quite certain that he divided the day not into four periods and hours in this way, but, as we do, into twelve parts and hours. However matters may stand, we shall gladly subscribe to this answer if the division of the day into four periods and the naming of those four periods from their beginnings can be established either by suitable testimony or probable reasoning. Nor are there lacking people who think that all of this was fabricated by later Jews. For if the second period of the day included only three hours, namely the fourth, fifth, and sixth, it ought to have been called not the third hour from the end of the preceding period, but the fourth hour from the beginning of the same period. Who could tolerate calling a period that extends from the tenth hour to the end of the twelfth the ninth hour? Certainly, just as the first hour takes its name from its beginning, if what these people say is true, so the other periods would also be named from their own beginnings. The simplest way to explain this passage seems to me to be, as Theophylact and Cajetan said, that Mark wrote ήν δέ ώρα ζ, that is, “It was the sixth hour,” but that ignorant or careless copyists changed the sign for six, ζ, into γ´, the sign for three. This was easy to do here because of the similarity of certain letters, and it is so well known that it often happens in authors whose books contain numbers and such symbols that there is no need to point it out. It was not only the authority of Theophylact and Cajetan but also reason that led me to hold this view. For, leaving aside the fact that Christians generally believe and frequently celebrate in the service and prayers of the Cross that the Lord was crucified at the sixth hour, this is certainly inferred from John's Gospel. For it reports that Pilate sat on the judgment seat at about the sixth hour. The fifth hour, then, was almost over. Otherwise, it would be false to say “about the sixth hour.” It is incredible that the short and very brief time remaining in the fifth hour was not spent in pronouncing sentence, taking Jesus and leading him out, and carrying the cross as far as Calvary. The distance was not small, and the journey was not so rapid that Simon of Cyrene could not have been compelled along the way, and Christ could not have spoken at some length to the women. Therefore, without doubt, if Mark wished to speak accurately and truthfully—and there is no reason why he would not—he wrote not that the Lord was crucified at the third hour but at the sixth. Jerome teaches this plainly in Psalm. 77, if he is indeed the author of those commentaries. Whoever explained that psalm, if he was not Jerome, was certainly learned. In his annotations on this passage in Mark, Erasmus cites this commentary under Jerome's name.

It also matters that Mark writes almost nothing different from Matthew, especially in the account of Christ's Passion. When I consider that Mark wrote not only the same things as Matthew in the same order in that account, but almost in the same words, I am easily led to think that he used not the sign for three but the sign for six, as Matthew does. The objection to this view made by the author of the commentariorum in Marcum, which circulates under Jerome's name, is very easily refuted. “If the Lord was crucified at the sixth hour,” he says, “and darkness covered the earth from the sixth to the ninth hour, those passing by could not have shaken their heads at him, since they could not see him at all in the darkness.” I answer him very briefly: Christ was crucified at the beginning of the sixth hour. As that same hour passed, insults were hurled at him. But toward the end of that hour darkness covered the world, which Mark seems most aptly to signify by these words: “And when the sixth hour had come.” For what is more straightforward than to understand that the hour had come to an end, not begun? Both the common people and philosophers truly say that something has “come to pass” when it has been completed, not when it has begun. From this it is clearly understood—whether Osiander likes it or not—that all the Evangelist's statements cohere if we read, “It was the sixth hour, and they crucified him.” Since the events that the Evangelist relates next happened during that hour, he finally says, “And when the sixth hour had come, darkness,” and so on, so that we might understand that the hour had ended, unless we were very slow. I think we have discussed the fifth objection quite fully. Response to the sixth argument. I am reluctant to say how our Cajetan tried to reject the objection placed sixth, but I shall say it, lest I seem to have spared one of our own while defending the truth of the Gospel. He certainly first suggests—for he does not persist in that opinion afterward—that Luke the Evangelist followed the error of the Seventy translators in this passage, though without himself erring. I cannot merely understand this; I cannot even conceive it in thought. For if the Evangelist unwittingly follows the Seventy as they err in the history of the Gospel, he is nevertheless mistaken, even if unwittingly. But if, as they say, he knowingly and deliberately inserts a fictitious account of the Seventy in his Gospel, he is also mistaken—and all the more so, because he deliberately contaminates the integrity of the Gospel with a fabricated story. In short, if Cainan was not the son of Arphaxad, nor Sale the son of Cainan, then the Gospel history, which plainly says that Cainan was the son of Arphaxad and Sale the son of Cainan, is certainly false. That Luke had very weighty authorities to follow in his error may perhaps free the Evangelist from blame, but it cannot free the Gospel from error. I therefore think Eugubinus all the more deserving of criticism for plainly and resolutely asserting, without any restraint of modesty or reverence, that the Seventy erred and Luke followed them in error. As for Jerome's statement against Helvidius that the Evangelists sometimes express popular opinion, which, as he says, is the true law of history, this is rightly said if one is considering expressions. For not only historians but all wise men, as Aristotle noted, often speak with the common people even though they think differently, and yet do not speak falsely. Thus Scripture calls those brothers who, according to the rules of philosophy, are not properly and truly brothers, but who are called brothers by common usage and without falsehood. So too the Evangelists called Joseph the father of the Lord, without in reality following a false popular opinion, although they spoke in the common manner. Joseph was called the father of Christ without lying both because he was his foster-father and because he was the husband of Christ's mother; each is usually called a father.

What, then, shall we do, when, as the proverb says, we hold the wolf by both ears? If we try to assert and defend the version of the Old Testament used by the Church, we accuse not only the Seventy translators of a very foolish invention but also the Evangelist of a manifest error. If we wish to defend and protect Luke, we disapprove of the version of Sacred Scripture approved by the Church's usage and decree. He falls into Scylla who wishes to avoid Charybdis. But we must above all avoid depriving Luke the Evangelist, and thereby the Gospel of Christ, of its own divine authority. Let us therefore defend that generation in Christ's genealogy which Luke included from the edition of the Seventy translators. For the Church has also approved this edition by its use. All the Greek writers certainly recognize this generation together with the Seventy translators, as does Augustine in 16 De civ. Dei, cap. 10. It is in no way plausible that the Seventy translators, upright men, invented that one generation vainly and foolishly. Moreover, as Origen says, what the Seventy translators rendered must be held as true in the divine Scriptures, for this is what has been confirmed by apostolic authority. Our edition of the Old Testament, then, is deficient. The manuscripts Jerome obtained, however, were not complete. He could therefore omit one generation without fault or error. For Matthew the Evangelist omitted several when he set out Christ's genealogy, and did so without error. In other respects, however, we defend our edition from every falsehood, but not from every incompleteness. Nor am I unaware that Hertmann, John Nauclerus, and Lucidus said that Luke's Gospel is corrupt and that the particle “also” should be substituted for the word “was,” as follows: “who was Sale, who was also Cainan,” so that Sale would be understood as having two names. But they do not seem to have read the edition of the Seventy, from which the name Cainan was received by the Evangelist. For in the edition of the Seventy translators it cannot even be imagined that Sale and Cainan were the same person. This controversy is settled differently, and perhaps better, if we say that the true and corrected Hebrew manuscripts do not have that generation of Cainan, but that it was added by the Seventy translators. Yet it was not added falsely; rather, either from the tradition of the ancestors or from histories worthy of belief, it was held that Arphaxad begot Cainan and Cainan begot Sale. The Seventy translators therefore may not only have rightly but perhaps also wisely included that one generation, fearing that the Gentiles might accuse the ancient traditions of the Hebrews or certainly the Sacred Scriptures of falsehood if they read that Arphaxad begot Sale, while in those other sources they would find that not Arphaxad but Cainan begot Sale. By a hidden method, the Spirit of God moved the mind and hand of Moses to omit that one generation from the line of the Fathers, just as by divine counsel Matthew also omitted several from Christ's genealogy. We may reasonably infer that Moses and Matthew had the same reason. When Matthew first listed Christ's ancestors, he said, “All the generations from Abraham to David,” and so on, so that no one would suspect that any ancestor had been passed over through a lapse of memory rather than deliberately omitted. Although the Evangelist could perhaps have given many reasons for this, he seems to put forward one especially in his conclusion, namely, the commendation of the groups of fourteen. For this reason he wished the three groups of generations to be equal in number, so that the number fourteen would be consecrated three times in the Lord's genealogy. There is altogether the same reason for Moses having done this, so that in

We would infer that some mystery lies in the number ten, to which he had reduced both series of our ancestors. Why the number fourteen is referred to the evangelical law and ten to the law of nature is not for us to discuss today or here. Here we say only that the Seventy translators did not add the generation of Cainan without reason, nor did Moses omit it without a mystery; both acted truly and wisely, and Luke likewise followed both truthfully and wisely. No one should make a tragedy out of our saying that our edition is imperfect in some places. For certain Hebrew words can be brought forward which Jerome himself admits in his commentaries could have been translated with greater force and better. Indeed, in Isaiae cap. 19, he says: “For what we translated as ‘bending and restraining,’ we may say ‘crooked and wanton.’ We, however, when quickly translating what was written, were deceived by the ambiguity of the Hebrew word ‘Akum’ and rendered it ‘restraining.’ Aquila translated it more expressively as στρεβλούντα, that is, ‘one who does nothing rightly but turns everything awry.’” Thus far Jerome; and cap. 9 eiusdem prophetae he had rendered the same word as “one who corrupts.” Certainly neither the sense nor the Hebrew words allow us to accept “restraining,” a matter to be explained elsewhere. I think enough has been said, and carefully, about the sixth argument. Answer to the seventh. As for what follows in seventh place, there are many and varied answers from the most learned men, but they are so implausible that they satisfy neither the learned nor the devout. Augustine of Eugubio rejects the first part of the objection by saying that in the edition of the Seventy, in Geneseos cap. 46 et Exodi cap. 1, the copyists’ error changed “seventy-five” to “seventy.” He says the same corruption by copyists occurred Actor. 7; or that Luke, since he did not know Hebrew, cited the passage in a corrupted form as it existed at the time; or, at any rate, if the Seventy translated it that way, the Evangelist followed their edition, which was everywhere most widely received. Jerome, however, in Hebrew Questions, attributes nothing to the carelessness of copyists. He teaches that the Hebrew text does indeed contradict it, but that the Seventy, by anticipation, gave the number of souls as seventy-five; Luke, however, should not write anything contrary to that Scripture which had already been published among the Gentiles. At that time, after all, the authority of the Seventy was held in greater regard than Luke’s, since he was unknown, insignificant, and not held in great trust among the nations. “Although many,” he says, “report that Luke the Evangelist, as a proselyte, did not know Hebrew letters.” So much for Jerome. To begin at the beginning, it is hardly credible that all copies, both new and old, Greek and Latin, should have been corrupted in three places at once. I do not find it plausible that no author before Eugubio, although many had encountered both those passages and this question, was able to notice something so obvious. And if we use the carelessness of copyists at will to untie knots of this kind, we must fear that, while trying to expose another’s ignorance, we may expose our own. Otherwise, if that is agreeable, let us explain all ambiguous questions and all apparent contradictions in Sacred Scripture in this way. Eugubio does this repeatedly. To remove the final part of the objection, he asserts that through the scribes’ fault “Abraham” was written instead of “Jacob,” and “Father” instead of “Son.” Certainly, if St. Jerome could have defended himself in this way when the authority of the Seventy was raised against him, he would have made the most of that defense. But, seeing that all the copies agreed remarkably and all the commentators said the same thing, he did not

blame corrupt copies; he plainly admitted that the Seventy translated it that way, and that Luke the Evangelist followed them. But when I bring reason back to the truth, I find it much more absurd to say that Luke cited a corrupted passage from the Old Testament as it existed at the time. We either make the Evangelist ignorant, if the corruption escaped him, or make him timid, if, though endowed with divine authority, he did not dare restore what had been corrupted, while Eugubio dared to do so without any authority. It is impious to attribute what Luke wrote by the counsel of the Holy Spirit to ignorance of Hebrew letters. Since, then, we have said for necessary reasons that every detail of Scripture was written by divine inspiration and influence, surely none of it can result from ignorance of languages—unless the Holy Spirit, who guided both the Evangelist’s mind and hand, was ignorant of Hebrew letters. Let us therefore say what suffices for the present point: the Seventy translators gave seventy-five souls in Geneseos cap. 46 et Exodi cap. 1, as is plainly gathered from the context. For since in Geneseos cap. 46 the translators counted the descendants of Manasseh and Ephraim—that is, Machir, Gilead, Shuthelah, Tahan, and Edem—it was necessary for the total to come to seventy-five. Whether the Hebrew copies translated by the Seventy counted those grandchildren of Joseph in that genealogy, or whether the Seventy themselves added them by anticipation, is uncertain. This is certain: what they removed, they removed in good faith and perhaps with prudent judgment; what they added, they added without deceit. For it is clear that in some places they produced a paraphrase rather than a translation. Luke and the other apostles and Evangelists used the edition of the Seventy because it was the best at that time. They do not follow an error that belonged to the translators, as some unwisely assert, but use their testimonies where they truly spoke. Nor does it trouble me that some object that the truth of this history can be defended only through figurative wording. Our own edition needs the same defense. For when seventy souls are said to have entered Egypt, Ephraim and Manasseh must also be counted to complete the number, though they themselves did not enter Egypt. It is no wonder if the edition of the Seventy has an anticipation, since we too admit a transposition in our own. In Geneseos cap. 12, after Terah’s death, the Lord’s command is written in which he orders Abraham to leave his land and kindred. But Actor. 7 Stephen plainly teaches that the command was given in Chaldea before Terah died and came to Haran. St. Augustine saw this sharply 16 lib. De civit. Dei, and reason itself shows it as well. Since Abraham is ordered to leave his land and kindred, we are compelled to understand this as Chaldea, Abraham’s own land, where his kindred also lived. But if he had been ordered to leave Haran, he would have left neither his own land nor his kindred. For although Haran was part of Mesopotamia, it was not part of Chaldea, as some have rather ineptly asserted. I am not unaware that Jerome wrote in Ezech. 30 cap. that no narrative in the historical books is out of order, but that this occurs in the Psalms and Prophets. I ought to marvel at this more than refute it, since it is clear that anticipations are used in the Gospels. I will treat this more carefully elsewhere. Nor does it move me that Joseph is said to have summoned seventy-five souls; the same difficulty would remain if he had named only seventy souls, since he never summoned Ephraim and Manasseh at all. As Jerome rightly said in epist. ad Pammach. De opt. gen. interp., one must consider not the words but the meaning in Scripture. So much for the first part of the seventh argument.

Now the second part, although it may seem more difficult, will be refuted more easily. We learn not only from Stephen’s account but also from Jerome’s testimony that the twelve patriarchs were buried not in Hebron but in Shechem. In his epitaph for Paula to Eustochium, while writing about Paula’s pilgrimage, he says: “She passed through Shechem and entered the church built near Jacob’s well. Turning aside from there, she saw the tombs of the twelve patriarchs.” In On the Best Kind of Translator, addressed to Pammachius, he says: “The twelve patriarchs were not buried in Hebron but in Shechem.” Bede and other churchmen follow this same view. How much credence should be given to Josephus in history we shall show later, in the eleventh place. Let this much suffice concerning the second part of the seventh argument. The third and final part, however, seems to present an insoluble question. Augustine of Eugubio and, following him, Aloysius Lippomanus say that the passage is corrupted, that “Jacob” should be read instead of “Abraham,” and “Father” instead of “Son.” This cannot stand at all. First, it is not even plausible that all the Greek and Latin copies were corrupted from the time of the apostles onward. Second, it is not likely that Jerome, Rabanus, Bede, and the other church authorities who encountered this passage and question would have neglected this kind of defense if they had thought it even slightly plausible. Nor would wise and serious men have called a question most difficult if it could be explained with such little trouble, as these younger writers think. Moreover, in words so dissimilar there was no opportunity for corruption. If, for example, copyists write “evertit” instead of “everrit,” or “fontem” instead of “fortem,” they could be misled by the great similarity of the words. But to write “Abraham” instead of “Jacob,” or “Son” instead of “Father,” when the names are so different, admits no possible cause of corruption except the copyists’ drunkenness or madness. Moreover, in the Greek copy neither “Son” nor “Father” is expressed; after the word “Emor” only the genitive τοϋ Συκέμ is written. The Latin translator, since it was the more natural reading, understood “son,” not “father.” Sanctes Pagninus interprets it in exactly the same way. I am not unaware that in his letter to Pammachius, On the Best Kind of Translator, Jerome reads “father,” not “son.” But that reading may perhaps be Erasmus’s, not Jerome’s. I will not linger over the word “father.” For if the Greek phrase certainly permits the name either “son” or “father” to be understood, Stephen, who spoke Greek, will have nothing to suffer from calumny on this point. But Eugubio’s answer has no place for the word “Abraham”; if Luke is said to have written “Jacob” instead, he will still be accused. For Jacob bought the tomb not for a price of silver but for one hundred young sheep, as it is written in Joshua, chapter 24. I know what the recent translators discuss here; but the text approved by the Church, namely the Septuagint edition, also has “one hundred young sheep,” not “one hundred silver coins.” Let us therefore maintain that the copies are not corrupted. And since the other answers can be refuted with the same ease, I see no reason to linger over refuting them. Nor do we take pleasure in criticizing the views of others. Here, then, Bede’s opinion pleases me, and Rabanus agreed with it. His words are as follows: “Blessed Stephen, speaking in public, follows the common people’s way of speaking. For, joining two accounts together, he has in view not so much the order of the surrounding history as the point under discussion,” etc. Rabanus says much the same. With these words they indicated, indeed modestly and with restraint, that what often happens to ordinary speakers also happened to Stephen: in a long narrative, especially one delivered on the spur of the moment, he confused and combined some things, and in some matters his memory slipped

in only those matters that had little or nothing at all to do with the point. For he was focused on the cause primarily at issue. Luke, however, wishing to preserve the truth of the history, did not change even a jot, but set out the matter as it had been told by Stephen. We ought to vindicate not Stephen from every lapse but the Evangelist. For we have learned from the Catholic faith that only the apostles, prophets, and Evangelists are granted this honor: we believe that none of them suffered a lapse of memory or erred in either great or small matters. Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit, I admit. The Spirit spoke in him, and I admit that too. But the Spirit speaks one way in Christ, another in the prophets and apostles, and another in Stephen and Ambrose. Certainly God spoke through all of them. God speaks to the Church through a general Council, through the Church’s pastors, and through the ancient saints; yet all of these may still err in small matters, especially in memory, where a lapse is easier. This privilege, then, belongs to the writers of Sacred Scripture: none of them errs in writing. The privilege of the apostles is that none of them errs in teaching. Neither reason nor authority grants this privilege to Stephen. Nor is it foreign to sacred authors to report even the words of people who are mistaken. Thus Jephthah claims three hundred years of possession in Iudicum cap. 11, when in fact there had not been three hundred; yet the sacred historian reported “three hundred.” Similarly, if we believe Jerome, Matthew reported Micah’s prophecy not as Micah had written it but as it had been recited by the scribes. To write about how Erasmus criticized Jerome’s view with vain and frivolous arguments is not for this place or time. What must be said is that Jerome and Augustine’s words can be twisted to mean that Evangelists were sometimes mistaken only if one acts with little prudence. For when Jerome had cited in epist. De opt. gen. interp. certain passages from sacred authors that could be attributed to a lapse of memory, he adds: “I repeat these things not to accuse the Evangelists of falsehood. This is the way of the impious—Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian.” Erasmus interprets this as Jerome abhorring the charge of falsehood against the Evangelists but not the charge of a lapse of memory—as though only what is written with a deliberate lie were false. Certainly, whether Evangelists departed from the truth through a lapse of memory or ignorance, they would rightly be accused of falsehood. Moreover, Augustine, in evangelist. 3 cap. 7 De consensu evangelist., did not attribute it to a lapse of memory or an error that Matth. cap. 27, cited under Jeremiah’s name what is found in Zechariah; rather, he attributed it to the counsel, direction, arrangement, and command of the Holy Spirit, insisting that it had been done without falsehood. Erasmus, however, interprets Augustine’s view as meaning that the Evangelist erred and lapsed. How falsely such things are imputed to the most holy men can easily be judged both by carefully examining those very passages and by considering other testimonies of those same authors that we cited in the preceding chapter. It is now time to bring the fourth controversy to an end. This first locus will also be concluded here—not briefly, for that was impossible, since it was extensive and supplied enough material for a substantial volume, but as briefly as was possible—so that the authority of this most firm locus might be established in a state that neither the rashness of human understanding nor the injury of heretics could undermine.

ON THE APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS PLACED SECOND