Criticism of Vague Narratives

Rather, would anyone tell a story about a foolish woman? Then you say, 'no one knew that which is not,' like one speaking against children. Therefore, say how he knew that which is, if he himself did not see by inquiring—neither the upright man, nor the ephod which enclosed him, nor the high-priestly garment? But he, seeing nothing at all, was tossing himself among the people with words, just as you too, through negligence, strike the stable ones with senseless talk.

But the historian, having first set down the name of the belly-storyteller, declared what kind of face he has, being earnest. He then described how he had seen the vision, as is proper for those thinking well about the struck-down; for no one would suppose a madman to observe what is necessary. In a similar way, he said the foolish Saul had known him prophesying, as it would be worthy to think regarding him, being bitterly driven by the demon through such many years (1 Sam 16:14).

But truly, because these things have this manner, the facts themselves make clear that this is false. And so that I might also set up similar things from another example, bring forward the history regarding the prophet Elijah. How then Elijah, being in zeal, reproved the eight hundred false prophets, being fifty in number, to test the order of each in sacrifice—not to bring down fire, but to bring down a shower of fire by prayers, so that from the smoking meteor from heaven it might be manifest to all able to hear, by the fire that God sent from heaven, and from this it might be known who has the authority of the superior, and the better thing might be manifest to all (1 Kings 18).

As he commanded the first ones to perform, those having chosen a bull were melting it as was customary, but those calling upon the four-cornered ritual of the so-called Baal did nothing less, nothing at all.

Not so, but rather, 'and they were being cut according to their custom with knives,' he said, 'and with saws until the shedding of blood.' Then, upon this, the narrative of the writer brings assistance: 'and he was prophesying until the evening meal had passed.' Since, therefore, the letter did not command whether it was prophesying truly or falsely, because of this, would anyone say that those were true prophets?

For it was necessary to have spoken according to the decision of Origen: they were prophesying as they thought it seemed, saying nothing true (since it is not even lawful to trade in such predictions), but not with unentangled and pure utterance, in the words 'and he was prophesying until the evening meal had passed.' So, then, is it possible to see following from the same history of the letter that these things were sufficient for them? For if the writer is the same for both, he draws the mind to be similar from both sides.

But just as here, having placed before us the name of the idol-worshippers, he made manifest according to the meaning that one must suppose concerning such people that they are false prophets lacking in foreknowledge, so also there, having placed before us persons possessed by demons and the dramas of unlawful divination, and according to my silence, he suggested what is fitting for the wise to judge concerning the thoughtless.

But as for such testimonies, if I pass them over, perhaps time will perhaps fail us in saying them; but adding one more image of an example, I shall be satisfied. For truly, in the writing of the Exodus, it was signaled by a prophecy how the Lord himself commanded those around Moses and Aaron to cast the rod to the ground to oppose Pharaoh, so that, having changed its shape into a serpent as a sign, it might strike the Egyptians with fearful blow. And as this happened paradoxically, the ruler, being tormented by folly, in an incapable way summoned at once 'the sophists and the pharmacists of Egypt.' 'And the praisers of the Egyptians also did likewise with their pharmacologies,' he said, 'and each one threw his own rod, and they became dragons; and Aaron's rod swallowed their rods.' Moreover, it is still being mentioned.