Anf-03 v.iv.v.xviii Pg 13
Luke vii. 16.
What God? He, of course, whose people they were, and from whom had come their prophets. But if they glorified the Creator, and Christ (on hearing them, and knowing their meaning) refrained from correcting them even in their very act of invoking4148 4148 Et quidem adhuc orantes.
the Creator in that vast manifestation of His glory in this raising of the dead, undoubtedly He either announced no other God but Him, whom He thus permitted to be honoured in His own beneficent acts and miracles, or else how happens it that He quietly permitted these persons to remain so long in their error, especially as He came for the very purpose to cure them of their error? But John is offended4149 4149 Comp. Epiphanius, Hæres. xlii., Schol. 8, cum Refut.; Tertullian, De Præscript Hæret. 8; and De Bapt. 10.
when he hears of the miracles of Christ, as of an alien god.4150 4150 Ut ulterius. This is the absurd allegation of Marcion. So Epiphanius (Le Prieur).
Well, I on my side4151 4151 Ego.
will first explain the reason of his offence, that I may the more easily explode the scandal4152 4152 Scandalum. Playing on the word “scandalum” in its application to the Baptist and to Marcion.
of our heretic. Now, that the very Lord Himself of all might, the Word and Spirit of the Father,4153 4153
Anf-03 v.iv.v.xix Pg 20
In allusion to Luke vii. 16. See above, chap. xviii.
but still one who had been born as man? Even if it had been necessary that He should thus be tried in the investigation of His birth, surely any other proof would have better answered the trial than that to be obtained from mentioning those relatives which it was quite possible for Him, in spite of His true nativity, not at that moment to have had. For tell me now, does a mother live on contemporaneously4202 4202 Advivit.
with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them?4203 4203 Adgenerantur.
May a man rather not have fathers and sisters (living), or even no relatives at all? But there is historical proof4204 4204 Constat. [Jarvis, Introd. p. 204 and p. 536.]
that at this very time4205 4205 Nunc: i.e., when Christ was told of His mother and brethren.
a census had been taken in Judæa by Sentius Saturninus,4206 4206 “C. Sentius Saturninus, a consular, held this census of the whole empire as principal augur, because Augustus determined to impart the sanction of religion to his institution. The agent through whom Saturninus carried out the census in Judæa was the governor Cyrenius, according to Luke, chap. ii.”—Fr. Junius. Tertullian mentions Sentius Saturninus again in De Pallio, i. Tertullian’s statement in the text has weighed with Sanclemente and others, who suppose that Saturninus was governor of Judæa at the time of our Lord’s birth, which they place in 747 a.u.c. “It is evident, however,” says Wieseler, “that this argument is far from decisive; for the New Testament itself supplies far better aids for determining this question than the discordant ecclesiastical traditions—different fathers giving different dates, which might be appealed to with equal justice; while Tertullian is even inconsistent with himself, since in his treatise Adv. Jud. viii., he gives 751 a.u.c. as the year of our Lord’s birth” (Wieseler’s Chronological Synopsis by Venables, p. 99, note 2). This Sentius Saturninus filled the office of governor of Syria, 744–748. For the elaborate argument of Aug. W. Zumpt, by which he defends St. Luke’s chronology, and goes far to prove that Publius Sulpicius Quirinus (or “Cyrenius”) was actually the governor of Syria at the time of the Lord’s birth, the reader may be referred to a careful abridgment by the translator of Wieseler’s work, pp. 129–135.
which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. Such a method of testing the point had therefore no consistency whatever in it and they “who were standing without” were really “His mother and His brethren.” It remains for us to examine His meaning when He resorts to non-literal4207 4207 Non simpliciter. St. Mark rather than St. Luke is quoted in this interrogative sentence.
words, saying “Who is my mother or my brethren?” It seems as if His language amounted to a denial of His family and His birth; but it arose actually from the absolute nature of the case, and the conditional sense in which His words were to be explained.4208 4208 Ex condicione rationali. See Oehler’s note, just above, on the word “rationales.”
He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him “stood without,” while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow4209 4209 Abdicavit: Rigalt thinks this is harsh, and reminds us that at the cross the Lord had not cast away his Mother. [Elucidation VI.]
them. And therefore, when to the previous question, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?”4210 4210
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Chapter 1
VERSE (65) - Lu 7:16 Ac 2:43; 5:5,11; 19:17 Re 11:11
