De locis theologicis

CONTAINS ARGUMENTS BY WHICH THE AUTHORITY OF HUMAN HISTORY IS CHALLENGED

Although, as we said a little earlier, our discourse has sailed out of rocky waters, and the matters that must be discussed in explaining this topic do not require great force or keenness of intellect, some of them nevertheless need grave and mature judgment. As a result—and this is scarcely credible—very difficult and slippery questions arise in a topic that is easy and clear. First, we must determine what authority human history has, and how much credibility it carries in theology; this is not so straightforward. Next, we must decide who should be considered a credible and trustworthy author, which is the most difficult matter of all. For the explanation of the truth at issue in a theological disputation must often be drawn not from the recent speech of men but from the memory of our ancestors and the antiquity of the annals. We shall certainly have to judge especially about ancient history, distinguish among all historians, and separate liars from truthful writers. Since I neither claim nor ought to claim this ability, I confess that I undertook this task not without some fear and shame, to perform it as a duty imposed by necessity rather than as work of my own choice. This is not because I lacked care in so great a duty and so weighty a matter, but because I see how dangerous it is to wish to act as judge precisely where that remarkable man is required: one who has an immeasurable store of ancient lore and is endowed with the greatest prudence and the gravest judgment. But so that we may complete as quickly as possible the not insignificant task we have undertaken, setting aside any plea for my ignorance, rashness, or both, let us proceed to discuss and explain the matters we have proposed. First, then, let us take up the authority of human history

which we shall attack with opposing arguments. Soon we shall show what kinds of arguments drawn from such history are used in theology. In the third place, we would show which authors theologians ought to approve in history. Finally, by refuting the opposing arguments, we shall bring this book to an end. The first argument by which the credibility of human history can be undermined is of this kind. Joseph was the son of Jacob by nature but the son of Heli according to the law: so wrote Africanus in his letter to Aristides; Justin Martyr in quaestione ad orthodoxos 66; Eusebius in book 1 of ecclesiasticae historiae, chapter 7; Nicephorus likewise in book 1, chapter 11; Ambrose, libro in Lucam 3; Jerome, in primum Matthaei capite; Augustine in book 2 of de consensu evangelistarum, chapter 3, and book 2 of retractationum, chapters 5 and 16; Damascenus in book 4, chapter 15; Bede in libro 1 in Lucae caput 10; Theophylact, in Lucae tertium caput; and nearly all the Fathers. They did not suddenly discover this or invent it without sources, but it was handed down by the Savior's own relatives and kinsmen, as Africanus states. Osiander proves by many arguments in book 1 of harmoniae evangelicae that this is fabricated; he thinks he proves it so thoroughly that he not only mocks St. Thomas and the other theologians as if they dreamed up monstrosities, but also calls insane those who first published this account. The second argument is that Joseph, the husband of Mary, had previously had another wife, by whom he had sons who are called in the Gospel the brothers of the Lord. Eusebius in book 2 of ecclesiasticae historiae, chapter 1; Nicephorus in book 2, chapter 3 (where he also reports Hippolytus as an author of the same opinion); Ambrose in de institutione virginis, chapter 6; Epiphanius in book 2 of contra haereses, chapters 51 and 78; and Hilary, canon 1 on Matthew, plainly agree. Jerome, however, dismisses this story in Matthaei duodecimum caput as the ravings of apocryphal writings; indeed, in adversus Elvidium he claims it was invented with brazen recklessness. The third argument: Jerome writes that an old story reports Herodias, whom Matthew mentions, to have been the daughter of King Aretas. Bede makes the same claim in libro commentationum in Marcum secundo, as does Eusebius in the translation of Rufinus, book 1 of ecclesiasticae historiae, chapter 13. But Josephus in book 18 of antiquitatum, chapter 5, and Hegesippus in book 2 of de excidio Hierosolymorum, chapter 12, are most trustworthy witnesses that this is false. Nicephorus in book 1, chapter 20, agrees with them. Therefore we cannot establish anything from the public record of ancient events—not with certainty, I will say, but not even with probability. For if we may reject and dismiss as worthless the histories reported in these three arguments, no human history will be found that has any force for establishing credibility. The fourth argument: Cyprian in sermone de baptismo Christi et manifesta Trinitate; Athanasius in quaestione 2 ad regem Antiochum; Jerome in Psalmum 71; Augustine in sermone 43 ad fratres in eremo, and in de mirabilibus sacrae scripturae (if these works are Augustine's); Chrysostom in homilia 6 on Matthew; Tertullian in contra Iudaeos; an ancient doctor named Christianus in caput Matthaei 2; Isidore in the preface to the mass commonly called Moçaraue; and St. Thomas in Matthaei caput 2 and in Ioannis II caput, and in part 3, question 36, article 3, say that the Magi who came from the East to worship Christ were kings and not merely philosophers. He says they were not only ^{1 2}

wise but powerful. Albert the Great, St. Vincent, Nicholas of Lyra, Dionysius the Carthusian, Simon of Cassia, the unknown Doctor on Psalm 71, Titelmans, John Eck, St. Antoninus, and other more recent writers whose names would take too long to list held the same view. And this story does seem to have been handed down to us from our forebears. Yet this common tradition is not at all conclusive in the Church. Indeed, Baptist Mantuan and other recent writers argue with considerable probability that the Magi were not kings. The Evangelist would not have passed over in silence something so important, nor would Herod have received them so imperiously and discourteously if they had been kings. Fifth, nearly all ancient and modern authorities have recorded that the Magi came to Jerusalem thirteen days after Christ’s birth. But Epiphanius, in haeresi. 51, firmly maintains that the Magi came from the East two years after Christ was born. There are two reasons for this view, neither of them entirely poor. First, on the day of the Purification Christ’s mother offered not a lamb but a turtledove or young pigeon. She therefore could not afford a lamb, and so had not yet received the treasure from the Magi. The second reason is that Herod killed all the boys who were two years old or younger, according to the period he had carefully learned from the Magi. It is not plausible that Herod would kill two-year-old boys in accordance with the time of the star’s appearance, which he had carefully ascertained from the Magi, if only thirteen days had passed between the star’s rising and their arrival. Add that they themselves testified that they had seen the star in the East. Those words surely mean more than merely that the region from which they had set out lay to the east of Jerusalem. If, then, they came from the East, as the Evangelist plainly writes, and Jerusalem is a very long way from the East, it is wholly contrary to human reason that in so few days they could have seen the star, discussed their departure, prepared for the journey, and crossed so many regions and peoples from the East to Palestine. Sixth, Maximus says that the miracle at the wedding took place on the anniversary of the Epiphany, and faithful antiquity handed this down to posterity. Epiphanius, by contrast, teaches that Christ, having completed his thirtieth year on the very day he was born, attended the wedding feast with his mother. We can therefore obtain nothing certain from the public record of dates. Seventh, as Jerome often says, a true rule of history is to write what people commonly believe, even when it is in fact false. Thus Mary herself called Joseph the father of Jesus, and the Evangelist says that Herod was troubled—not because Joseph truly was Christ’s father or Herod was inwardly troubled, but because people at the time commonly thought the former and those at table supposed the latter. Rather, we should believe that the cunning murderer concealed the malice of his mind, showing sorrow on his face while rejoicing inwardly. For this reason the Lord called him a fox. Josephus likewise says in 18 antiquitatum libro, capite 17, that Herod killed John because he feared that, under John’s leadership, the people might revolt. Every argument drawn from history is therefore uncertain, since the common opinion of the people is usually false. Any such argument can be refuted by saying that the historian reported popular belief, not the truth of events. ³

Eighth. In his sermon 71, de immolatione Isaac, Augustine says: “According to the report of the ancients, Adam, the first man, was buried at the very place where the cross was set up.” Cyprian likewise says in his sermon de resurrectione Christi: “The ancients hand down that Adam was buried beneath the place where the Lord’s cross was set up.” Paula and Eustochium tell the same story in their letter to Marcella, as one widely repeated by the local inhabitants. Epiphanius recounts it in libro 2 contra haereses capite ultimo, as if it were hardly in doubt. But Jerome, in Matthaei 27 caput and in 5 caput, epistolae ad Ephesios, mocks it as a fable, since Joshua 14 says Adam was buried at Kiriath-arba. Isidore followed Jerome’s opinion. Ninth. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodoret, Jerome, and Augustine infer from chronological records that the seventy years of desolation ended in the second year of Darius Hystaspes. But this is not only false and invented; it also contradicts Scripture, which states plainly and openly that those seventy years ended right at the beginning of Cyrus’s reign. No sound argument, then, can be drawn from chronology. Tenth. Jerome, a most authoritative historian, reports that construction of the Temple began in the second year of Darius. Yet it has been clearly established that Zerubbabel laid the Temple’s foundations under Cyrus. Any argument drawn from human history is therefore weak, no matter how authoritative its historian. Eleventh. Most historians, including distinguished ones, reported that Artaxerxes obstructed the Temple’s construction. Scripture, however, says that the Temple was built at the command of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes. Twelfth. Josephus, in libro 5 antiquitatum capite 1; Sabellicus, in Aenea 1 libro 4; and Nauclerus, in Chronographiae suae generatione 28, maintain that Joshua ruled for twenty-six years after Moses’s death. Eusebius in chronicis, followed by Isidore, Sulpicius Severus, and John Carion, assigns Joshua twenty-seven years. If these accounts were true, the total of 480 years from the Israelites’ departure from Egypt to the building of the Temple, calculated in 3 Regum libro capite 6, would not be true. Thirteenth. If any history ought to be approved by a theologian, it is surely one celebrated by the voice of all the churches. Yet many such stories provide no evidence in theology. To pass over the ridiculous and false tales told about Quiricus and Julitta, Gregory, Catherine the martyr, and the eleven thousand virgins, the story of the Apostle Thomas is apocryphal and fabricated—not only according to Gelasius (distinction 15, chapter Sancta Romana), but also according to Augustine in libro 22 contra Faustum capite 79; in libro unico contra Adimantum capite 17; and in libro 1 de Sermone Domini in monte capite 38. Add the fable about Martha and Mary Magdalene, which says that Mary Magdalene inherited Magdala and Martha inherited Bethany by lot, whereas John writes that Bethany was the town of Mary and Martha. Fourteenth. The history that seems to surpass the rest is one approved by the supreme pontiffs. Yet the Donation of Constantine, his leprosy, baptism, and recovery are not only celebrated in Church histories but approved by the supreme pontiffs as well. Many highly learned men have argued that all these things are fabricated. No Church history, then, supplies a theologian with sound arguments. ⁴

Fifteenth. Among churchmen there is no one who can be regarded as a credible authority on history. Not Philo, in temporum breviario: even in that tiny book there are so many lies that they are almost impossible to count. Not Josephus: first, because he reports many things that strongly contradict Scripture; second, because in his history he follows tertium Esdrae librum, which Jerome rejects as nothing but dreams; and finally, because he is repeatedly mistaken in dating events. Who, then, in the Church can be considered a reliable historical authority? Africanus? Gelasius calls his history apocryphal. Eusebius? Gelasius likewise condemns his history as apocryphal. But Sozomen is considered foremost in historia tripartita. Gregory condemns him, saying that Sozomen’s history tells certain things about Eudoxius; the Apostolic See, moreover, refuses to receive that history because it contains many lies, praises Theodorus too highly, and claims that he remained a great teacher of the Church until the very end of his life. If the chief authorities in Church history are uncertain and mendacious, a theologian will surely find no sound argument to confirm his conclusions in their works—or in those of lesser authority. Sixteenth. Innocent, in distinction 20, chapter De quibus, approved only Church histories for settling Church cases. Pagan accounts of events, then, can have little force in theology. The Council of Florence confirms this in its seventh session with these words: “We should by no means use Roman or Greek history in a synod.” Seventeenth. Berosus is commonly praised above all others for the history of the Assyrian monarchy. Yet no history by this author survives. Learned men have discovered that the work published by Annius under Berosus’s name is fabricated. For the history of Persian events, Metasthenes is preferred; he is said to have followed the authentic public annals of Persia. Yet Annius published writings under his name with an even more fraudulent title. For this Metasthenes of Annius claims there were only eight Persian kings, though there were fourteen, listed in order by Jerome in septimum Danielis caput and by Eusebius in chronicis. And what does Greek history contain but fables that they commonly publish as true histories? Cicero, a weighty authority, says that the Greek nation did not respect the sanctity of testimony. Scipio, too, in Livy, treats Greek histories as fables. Fabius rightly said that Greek history usually has the same license as poetry, so that even ordinary speech may rightly repeat the line from satire: “Whatever lying Greece dares in history.” Josephus also testifies in proemio libro de Bello Iudaico that the Greeks neglect truth in history, and confirms this in 1 contra Appionem libro. Jerome, one of our own writers, likewise says of the Greek histories he had cited: “We should not accept the authority of those whose lies we detest.” To say nothing of the rest, Herodotus and Xenophon, whom the Greeks call the fathers of history, make frequent use of invented narratives. And what of the Roman empire? Are there any public annals that we ought to believe? Certainly not. Each writer recorded Roman events according to his own bias. As Cicero says, praise has made Roman history more full of errors. Flavius Vopiscus rightly said that certain things in Livy, others in Sallust, Cornelius Tacitus, and Trogus, can be undermined by clear evidence.

No credit, then, should be given to pagan histories, since they possess no authority that is certain—or even probable. The final argument attacks all histories generally, both Church and secular. It runs as follows. Aristotle excluded human belief from the intellectual virtues because it inclines equally toward falsehood and truth. Theology, which is grounded entirely in truth, will therefore take no help from human belief, nor join the truthful with the fallible in an argument, since any argument that rests on human belief rests equally on falsehood and truth. This is confirmed above all by the fact that people are liars, and every person can deceive and be deceived. Therefore, whether few or many historians assert something, every argument that leans on human testimony is weak. Consequently, any argument drawn from human history is too weak to establish anything at all in theology. These are the arguments used to challenge the authority of this field. Any others that may exist—and there may be more—are similar and will be refuted in the same way.