37
4. The letter mentioned above, which he sent to his Alexandrian friends after his departure from Alexandria to address his adversaries, dates to the year 231 or 232. Two notable fragments of this letter are presented below in Latin, one from the second book of Jerome’s *Against Rufinus*, and the other from the *Apologetic Treatise* of the same Rufinus in defense of Origen. Joined to these is another fragment from a letter of Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, to Origen.
5. It seems there were a great number of Origen’s letters, which, as Eusebius testifies in *Hist. eccl.* lib. VI, cap. 36—and which he wrote to Fabian, Bishop of Rome, and to many other heads of the Churches regarding the correct understanding of his faith—dated to around the year 236; but they perished long ago. Concerning the letter to Fabian, Jerome, *Epist.* 41 (alias 65), has this to say: "Origen himself, in the letter he writes to Fabian, Bishop of Rome, does penance for why he wrote such things, and refers the causes of his rashness to Ambrose, because he published for the public what was meant for secret."
6. The entire Greek letter of Origen to Africanus regarding the history of Susanna has survived to the present. The letter of Africanus is subjoined below.
7. There also exists a letter to Gregory Thaumaturgus in which he exhorts him to despise the study of philosophy and dedicate himself entirely to Sacred Scripture. It was written around the year 240. The entire text is presented below in Greek from the *Philocalia*.
8. Jerome, in *De viris illustribus*, cap. 60, commemorates Origen’s letters to Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra in Arabia. They were written around the year 240, but perished long ago through the injury of time.
9. Eusebius, in *Hist. eccl.* lib. VI, cap. 56, mentions his letter to the Emperor Philip himself, and another to his wife, Severa. Jerome mentions these same letters in *De viris illustribus*, cap. 54: "He wrote letters," he says, "to the Emperor Philip—who was the first of the Roman kings to be a Christian—and to [the Emperor's wife] Severa, which are extant to this day." This is also attested by Vincent of Lérins in *Commonitorium* 1, cap. 23, in these words: "That he was not only reverenced by private citizens but also by the Empire itself, the histories declare, which relate that he was summoned by the mother of the Emperor Alexander; and he was worthy of that heavenly wisdom, for which she burned with love and for which the emperor also had grace. And the very letters he wrote, with the authority of Christian teaching, to the Emperor Philip, who was the first of the Roman princes to be a Christian, bear witness to this," which was, as it happens, around the year 245. They have long since perished.
10. Jerome, in *De viris illustribus*, cap. 57, says that in his time there existed several of Origen’s letters to his pupil Trypho. Today, not even a scrap of these remains.
11. Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.* lib. VI, cap. 39, where he reports on the persecution under Decius and what Origen suffered in it, says: "As for what happened to Origen in the persecution, how much he suffered, and what kind of end he met—seeing that the wicked demon drew up his whole army against the man, and waged war against him with every device and power, and set upon him more fiercely than upon any others who were attacked at that time—the kind and quantity of chains, bodily tortures, and torments in the darkest part of the prison he endured for the sake of the Word of Christ; and how for many days, his legs stretched four spaces apart in the stocks, he was tortured; and the threats of fire, and whatever else he stoutly bore when brought against him by his enemies; and what the outcome of his situation was, as the judge struggled with all his might that he should not kill him; and what utterances he left behind after these events, full of benefit to those needing comfort—all these things his many letters describe truly and accurately." Nothing of these survives today.
12. In some manuscripts of the Greek Fathers on Deuteronomy 16:20, a fragment is brought forth from the letter "to the presbyters Photius and Andreas." But our most learned Montfaucon rightly warns, in his *Bibliotheca Coisliniana*, p. 41, that "Origen" was erroneously placed for "Severus," whose letter to the presbyters Photius and Andreas is mentioned in the manuscript of the same Coislin Library, p. 44. Therefore, we have refrained from publishing this supposititious fragment among the genuine works of Origen.
ON THE LETTER OF AFRICANUS TO ORIGEN AND THE RESPONSE OF ORIGEN TO AFRICANUS CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA ADMONITION.
4-51. There is almost nothing more celebrated among the ancients than these two little pieces of writing. Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.* lib. VI, cap. 31, says: "There exists a letter of this man (Africanus) written to Origen, in which he argues that the history of Susanna in Daniel is supposititious, against which Origen replies."
Rufinus in his own version A paraphrases these things according to his custom thus: "At the same time there was also Africanus, a man noble in ecclesiastical Scriptures. A letter of his is circulated, written to Origen, in which he objects to him or proposes that the history of Susanna, which is written in Daniel, seems fictitious and foreign to prophetic Scripture. To whom Origen, writing back most magnificently, asserts that one should by no means listen to the commentaries and frauds of the Jews; but that one should hold as true in the divine Scriptures only that which the Septuagint Interpreters had translated: for that is the only thing which has been confirmed by apostolic authority." Where one may note in passing that Jerome is not obliquely struck, who, speaking in the person of a Jew in his preface to Daniel, had called the history of Susanna a fabrication or fable. To Eusebius must soon be added Jerome, who, in his book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, says regarding Julius Africanus: "His is the letter to Origen on the question of Susanna, in that he says this fable is not held in the Hebrew, nor does it agree with the Hebrew etymology, *apò toû schínou schísai, kaì apò toû prínou prísai* [from the mastic tree to cleave, and from the holm oak to saw], against which Origen writes a learned letter." Photius agrees with these in his *Bibliotheca*, cod. XXXIV: "This man (Africanus) also writes to Origen concerning the narrative of Susanna, how it was not read in the Hebrew texts, and how it is not consistent with Hebrew etymology, neither 'to saw from the holm oak' nor 'to cleave from the mastic tree,' B and Origen, having taken issue with this, wrote back." And he wrote to Origen concerning the history of Susanna, that it is not read in the books of the Hebrews, and that it is not in the least consistent with Hebrew etymology, *apò toû prínou prísai, kaì apò toû schínou schísai*. Taking this up, Origen refutes it in writing. Suidas, under the entry *Africanus*, says: "Against him Origen wrote, having raised an objection concerning the book of Susanna, which is in Daniel." Against this man Origen wrote, responding to the arguments he had raised against the history of Susanna which exists in Daniel. Likewise under the entry *Susanna*: "That Origen wrote against Sextus Africanus, having raised an objection concerning the book of Susanna which is in Daniel." Origen wrote against Sextus Africanus and refuted his arguments by which he had attacked the book of Susanna. This is correct, except that he confuses Julius Africanus with Sextus Africanus, as Joseph Scaliger warns us in his *Animadversiones in Eusebium*, at the year 2237. Freculphus in his *Chronicon*, tom. II, lib. II, cap. 8: "His (Africanus') is the letter to Adamantius on the question of Susanna, in that he says it is held as a fable in the Hebrew (read: *not* held) nor does it agree with the Hebrew, against which Adamantius wrote a learned letter." Nicephorus Callistus, lib. V *Hist. eccl.*, cap. 21: "But this man (Africanus) having drafted a letter, sent it to Origen, casting off the history of Susanna which is with Daniel, just as if it were a spurious writing of Scripture; against which Origen, writing back, shows that it is not spurious, but rather more genuine to Scripture, and D that it provides a most complete usefulness." "He also gave a letter to Origen, in which he rejects the history of Susanna which is held in Daniel, as if it were an adulterous writing. To whom Origen, writing back, shows that it is not illegitimate, but rather genuine Scripture, which, indeed, brings forth much usefulness." Gobelinus Persona in his *Cosmodromio*, age 6, cap. 10: "Gordianus, he says, reigned for six years. In this time was the historian Africanus, who wrote one letter to Origen concerning the history of Susanna." Trithemius also refers to it among the works of Julius Africanus, lib. *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*: "To Origen, he says, one book concerning Susanna." Finally, both these letters, besides being asserted by the unanimous testimony of the ancients, are also found to be recorded in many manuscripts even today, two of which especially bear a venerable antiquity. For one, from the Coislinian library no. 21, was written in the eleventh century of the Church; the other, from the Royal library no. 1892, was written in the thirteenth century.
6-8 2. It is certain that Origen wrote this letter of his to Africanus at Nicomedia; and since he instituted journeys to Greece twice, first in the year 228, and the second twelve years later, it C seems that he reached Nicomedia on one of these two journeys, and sent the letter from there. Huetius attributes it to the second journey. Indeed, in this letter Origen tells Africanus that he had collected, with great labor, the varying readings of the Hebrew text and the Septuagint Interpreters, having made a collation of both, and for that reason had examined all the various editions. But if he wished to indicate his *Hexapla*, for the publishing of which he took up the task after he found the sixth edition—testimony of Epiphanius—in the seventh year of Alexander Severus, that is, 228 of Christ, it seems he could not have arranged and published such an arduous and immense work as the *Hexapla* in this same year. Therefore, the letter to Africanus is better remanded to the second journey to Greece. Tillemont does not believe the *Hexapla* are indicated in this letter, but rather the *Tetrapla*, which he opines could have been adorned before the year 228. But Origen speaks in this letter of the Septuagint edition with obeli and asterisks, no. 4: "And there are other things," he says, "to be found in Genesis to which we have appended signs, called by the Greeks 'obeli,' so that such a thing might be known to us; just as again, there are asterisks for those things which are present in the Hebrew but not found with us." And there are other things in Genesis to be found, to which we have applied signs, called by the Greeks [obeli], so that such locations might be made known to us: just as again for the obelisks, for those things which are present in the Hebrew indeed, but are not found among us. But that Origen did not amend the edition of the Septuagint in the *Tetrapla*, but later applied the medical hand of obeli and asterisks to them, namely when he was adorning the *Hexapla* and *Octapla*, the Reverend Father Dom Bernard de Montfaucon proves invincibly in his *Preliminary Dissertations to the Hexapla*, page 10 and page 38. Therefore, the letter to Africanus is remanded not only after the edition of the *Tetrapla*, but also after the edition of the *Hexapla* and Origen's second journey to Greece. But the objection Tillemont raises for himself from Africanus' letter, where he calls Origen "son," does not seem to be of such great moment; for it is likely that Origen was called son because he was far younger in age; which reason was without doubt equal both in his first and in his second journey. Nor are examples lacking by which this might be confirmed: for Eusebius of Vercelli used to call Dionysius, bishop of Milan—already mature in age and conspicuous in dignity—"son," even if he were the younger. Wetstein, who in his notes to this letter of Origen, which he published in Greek in the year 1674, thinks that its [Africanus'] arguments do not aim to have the *Susanna* taken as canonical, inspired, and a true and genuine part of the book of Daniel, but only to have the history held as true, useful, and therefore worthy to be read among the pious and holy books. Accept in a few words how false that is. 1st: Africanus had written that when he heard Origen in a dialogue with Agnomon mentioning the history of Susanna, he at first thought the matter stood that way, but afterward, having weighed the matter more maturely, he marveled how it could have escaped a man of such stature that this part of the book of Daniel was spurious. "I marvel," he says, "how this part of the book escaped you, being spurious." Therefore, Origen, in the dialogue, without any sign of doubt, had praised this history as a true and genuine part of the book of Daniel. 2nd: Nor did he change his opinion having read Africanus' letter. This is patent from his individual responses to the objects of Africanus. Africanus objects at first