Origen’s Letter to Africanus Concerning the History of Susanna

wish to answer what you have asked and required of me. Therefore, granting pardon both to my mediocrity and to the shortness of the time, may you read this letter with all benevolence, and supply whatever may have been omitted by us.

^B 2. You said in the first place that when I was in conversation 19 with our friend Bassus, I made use of the prophecy of Daniel, being still a youth, concerning the story of Susanna, as if I were unaware that this 20 part of the book is spurious. You stated furthermore that you indeed praised it as charming, but disapproved of it as a recent fabrication; and that not even Philistion the mime, if he had composed such a writing, would have used this affinity of names, "prinos" (oak) for "krisis" (judgment), and "schinos" (mastic tree) for "schisis" (separation). This play on words is accepted indeed by the Greek language, but not at all by the Hebrew. Know, therefore, in regard to this, what we must do not only concerning the story of Susanna, which is circulated in the Greek copy ^C of the Greeks throughout the whole Church of Christ, although it does not exist among the Hebrews; nor only concerning the other parts, as you said, which are written at the end of the book, namely concerning Bel and the dragon: which likewise are missing in the Hebrew text of Daniel; but also concerning countless others which, according to our ability, while we were comparing our copies with the Hebrew exemplars, we have found in very many places. For in Daniel himself, where the matter concerns the burning furnace, we have found the phrase, "bound with fetters" [*]; but in our exemplars, besides those things which are in the Hebrew, there are not a few verses that abound, the beginning of which, according to some exemplars which are circulated in the churches, [continues on next page]

[*] Dan. III, 23.

^A was thus: “Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, prayed, and praised the Lord,” up to that: “Bless all you who worship the Lord God of gods. Praise and confess, for his mercy is for the age, and for the age of ages. And it came to pass when the king heard them praising, and he saw them living.” But according to others: “And they walked in the midst of the flame, praising God, and blessing the Lord,” up to that: “Bless all you who worship the Lord God of gods. Praise and confess, for his mercy is for all the ages.” And joined in the Hebrew was this: “And those three men, Sedrach, Misach, Abdenego, fell into the midst of the fire bound;” and that too: “King Nabuchodonosor marveled, and rose up in haste, and answered, and said to his nobles.” For thus Aquila, serving the Hebrew reading, edited it, having been trusted by the Jews ^B more ambitiously to interpret the Scripture; whom those who are ignorant of the Hebrew dialect are accustomed to use, as being more successful than all others. But our copies, of which I have even set forth the words, the one was according to the LXX, the other according to Theodotion; and as the story of Susanna, which you call a fiction, was found in both, together with the last sections that are in Daniel, so also these, in verses, as can be conjectured, to the number of two hundred and more.

3. But we have also found in many other holy books, sometimes more things written in our versions than in the Hebrew, and sometimes fewer. For the sake of example, since it is not possible to include everything at once, ^C I will set forth a few. Daniel, the wise man, at twelve years of age, became a vessel of the Spirit of God, and refuted the elders who carried their gray hairs in vain, the calumniators and despisers of another’s beauty. ^D

^A From the book of Esther, neither the prayer of Mordecai nor that of Esther, which are able to edify the reader, are found among the Hebrews; nor, indeed, are the letters; nor that which was written to Aman for the destruction of the Jewish nation, nor that of Mordecai in the name of Artaxerxes liberating the nation from death. But even in the book of Job, those words from "It is also written that he will rise again" (30), with those whom the Lord raises up, "until the end" (31), do not exist among the Hebrews; wherefore they are not held by Aquila, but among the Seventy and Theodotion they are equivalent in meaning. We have found ten thousand other things in Job, which, little by little, and to a greater extent, are redundant in our copies compared to the Hebrew text; ^B little by little indeed, when "rising early he offered sacrifices for them, according to their number," is added: "one bullock for sin for their souls" (Job 1, 5).

Regarding the authority that this passage had among the Greeks, one may learn from the Catena of the Greek Fathers on Job, where Chrysostom, Evagrius, Olympiodorus, Severus, and Julian explain it in their commentaries. It was missing from Aquila and Symmachus; as Olympiodorus teaches us besides Origen on page 611 of the Catena on Job: "It should be noted that Aquila and Symmachus, having followed the Hebrew text, placed an end to the book when they reached these words, 'old and full of days'; but Theodotion ends where the Seventy Interpreters end." That not a few of the ancients doubted this, as if it had been translated from the margin into the text by ignorant scribes and stitched onto it, is testified by Polychronius in the preface of the Catena on Job: "They note in the margin that the genealogy which is at the end is rejected by some because it is not found in the Hebrew." And a little later: "The similarity of the name in the genealogy of Esau, which exists in the book of Genesis, where mention is made of Jobab, provided a handle for error and for such a scholarly note to some, and in the passage of time, those things which were written in the margin were by others assumed into the context of the book." ^C Hence Jerome abrogated all faith in it in his Book of Hebrew Questions: "Some suspect this (Jobab) to be Job, as was added at the end of his volume. Conversely, the Hebrews assert that he was generated from Nachor with his lineage." And earlier: "The first-born of Nachor, Abraham’s brother, by his wife Melcha, daughter of Aran, was Us; from whose lineage Job descended, just as it is written in the beginning of his volume: 'There was a man in the land of Us, by the name of Job.'" Therefore, some incorrectly estimate Job to be of the race of Esau: since that which is held at the end of the book itself, for the reason that it was translated from the Syrian tongue, and that he is the fourth from Esau, and the rest which is contained there, is not held in the Hebrew volumes. ^D

^A And when "the angels of God came to present themselves before God, and the devil came with them," there is subjoined: "Going about through the earth, and walking in it." Furthermore, after these words: "The Lord gave, the Lord hath taken away," among the Hebrews those words were not there: "As it pleased the Lord, so it came to pass." But there is much more in our copies beyond the Hebrew when his wife said to Job: "How long wilt thou persist?" saying: "Behold, I will wait yet a little while, expecting the hope of my salvation," until the words: "That I may rest from my toils and from the pains which now detain me." For only the words of the wife are recorded: "But say some word to the Lord, and die." ^B And when "the angels of God came to present themselves before God(33), and the devil came with them," it is subjoined: "Going about through the earth, and walking in it." Also, there was not among the Hebrews, after the words: "The Lord gave, the Lord hath taken away," the phrase: "As it pleased the Lord, so it came to pass." But there is much more in our copies than in the Hebrew, when his wife said to Job: "How long wilt thou persist?" saying: "Behold, I will wait yet a little while, expecting the hope of my salvation," until the point where she says: "That I may rest from my toils and from the pains which now detain me." For only the wife's words are recorded: "But say some word to the Lord, and die."

4. Again, very many things through the middle of the entire book of Job lie with the Hebrews, which are lacking in our copies: most often indeed four or three verses, sometimes even fourteen, nineteen, or sixteen. And what need is there for me to enumerate those things which we have collected with much labor, so that the difference which exists between the Jewish and our copies might not be hidden from us? We have noticed many such things also in Jeremiah, in which we found a great transposition and change of the wording of the prophecies. Also, in Genesis, that phrase: "God saw that it was good," when the firmament had been made, is not found among the Hebrews; and this is no light question among them. And there are other things to be found in Genesis, to which signs are appended. ^C And again, very many things in the middle of the whole book of Job lie with the Hebrews, but not with us; and often indeed four or three verses, sometimes also fourteen and nineteen and sixteen. And why must I recount what we have gathered with great labor, so that the difference between the Jewish and our transcriptions might not escape us? We have noticed many such things also in Jeremiah, in which we have found great transposition and changing of the wording of those things being prophesied. And in Genesis, the text: "God saw that it was good," upon the firmament being made, is not found among the Hebrews; and this is for them no small problem. And there are other things to be found in Genesis, to which signs are attached. ^D [alt-version omitted]

^A We have placed the signs called by the Greeks obeli [(39)], so that what is of this kind may be known to us; just as, again, we have marked with asterisks those things which exist in the Hebrew, but are not found among us. And what need is there for me to speak of Exodus, where the things pertaining to the tabernacle and its court, and the ark, and the garments of the high priest and the priests, are so much altered that the sense does not even seem to be similar? It is time, therefore, [(40)] if such things do not escape us, to repudiate the copies circulating in the Churches, and to decree to the brotherhood that they should put aside the sacred books carried among them, and flatter the Jews, and persuade them so that they might share with us those that are pure, and have nothing of fiction. But did Providence, ^B in the holy Scriptures, grant all things, unless on the condition that there were no differences appearing in very many other copies, so that not even all things that exist in Matthew, and the rest of the Gospels, agree with one another? An impious man, certainly, would be thought to be one who would suspect that this commandment: «Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,» which was not cited by the Savior toward the rich man, had been inserted here. But now, whether because of the carelessness of certain scribes, or because of the wicked audacity of some who emend the Scriptures, or because of those who, while they emend, add or take away according to their own preference, there exists a great difference between copies. Certainly, we have been able, by the grace of God, to apply a remedy to the discrepancy that occurs in the copies of the Old Testament; having used the other editions, that we might make a judgment from them: for those things which were doubtful among the Septuagint Interpreters on account of the variety of copies, having made an assessment from the rest of the editions, we have retained a constant consensus with them; and some things, indeed, not existing in the Hebrew, we have marked with an obelus, since we have not dared to remove them entirely; some things, however, we have added with asterisks, so that it might be clear that those things not existing among the Septuagint, we have added from the remaining editions in agreement with the Hebrew. ^C And as for the correction of what is written, whether by those who add or take away what seems to them right in the correction: we have found, by the favor of God, how to heal this discrepancy in the copies of the Old Testament, by using as a touchstone the other editions. For of the things that were doubtful among the Seventy due to the discrepancy of the copies, we have made our judgment from the remaining editions, and have preserved what is in agreement with them; and some things indeed we have marked with an obelus as not being in the Hebrew, not having dared to remove them entirely; but some things we have added with asterisks, so that it might be clear that not being in the Seventy, we have added them from the remaining editions in agreement with the Hebrew. ^D Concerning the use of asterisks and obeli, see our most learned Montfaucon in his preliminary work on the Hexapla of Origen, chapter 4, number 3. Concerning these things, furthermore, it is helpful to append here an important passage of Origen which is contained in his fifteenth volume on Matthew: «And if not even regarding many other matters there were such discrepancy between the copies, so that not all things according to Matthew agree with one another, and likewise also the remaining Gospels—even if someone would seem wicked who suspects that here has been thrown in a commandment not spoken by the Savior to the rich man, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’—now, however, it is evident that a great difference has arisen in the copies, either from the sloth of certain scribes, or from the audacity of certain people of a wicked disposition [(40)] "It is time, therefore," etc. Thus the royal codex [Cantabrigiensis] correctly has: "It is time, therefore, if such things do not escape us, to repudiate the things that are in the Churches." With this argument, Rufinus abuses [him] in the first book of the Invectives against Jerome: "How then," he says, "did they, who commanded their disciples to attend to the reading, not give them emended and true readings? And they who command us not to attend to Jewish fables and genealogies, which provide questions rather than edification, and again command us to beware and to observe especially those who are of the circumcision, how did they not foresee through the spirit what would be the time after about four hundred years, when the Church, having known that the truth of the Old Testament had not been handed down to it by the apostles, would send legates to those whom they then called the circumcision, begging and beseeching that they might share with them something of the truth that is among them?" I said that Rufinus abuses the Origenian argument.

^A For the edification of the Churches of Christ, did not care for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died; whose own Son God did not spare, but, being Charity itself, delivered him up for us all, that with him he might graciously give us all things?

5. In this regard, consider whether it is not good to keep in mind the saying: "Thou shalt not remove the eternal landmarks, which thy ancestors have set." ^B And I say this not out of any sluggishness in searching out the Scriptures that are with the Jews, or in comparing all our own with theirs, and seeing the differences between them. We have done this with great diligence, as far as we have the power, unless it be arrogant to say so, checking the versions and their differences one against the other with great care; yet we have spent somewhat more labor upon the LXX interpretation, that we might not appear to introduce anything adulterated into the Churches which are under heaven, and give a pretext to those who seek for occasions, wishing to slander those who are in our midst and to criticize what is shining forth in common. ^C We strive not to be ignorant of the Scriptures which they have, so that, when conversing with the Jews, we may not bring forward to them items not contained in their own copies, and that we may make use of what is current among them; if any point be lacking, we add an asterisk—not because there is any need at all that the word should be sought out, for it is superfluous, but so that I might not omit to prevent Jews and Samaritans from seizing upon the divine Scriptures in the holy Churches, in case there should be nothing liable to objection against the faith in the words that have been omitted.

Success followed these efforts in Origen, who added to each place what was missing and affixed the note of an asterisk: not because those added words are altogether necessary, since they seem superfluous, ^D but so that he might leave no opportunity to Jews and Samaritans to slander the sacred Letters which we use in the Churches; since there was nothing in those subtracted words against the faith, which could deservedly be criticized. Rufinus, in his book *Invective against Jerome*, says: "Apostates and Jews indeed interpreted those texts which the Jews mostly use in their reading. And because they often lied—if a dispute occurred—that some things in our Scriptures had been changed, or were missing, or were different, Origen wished to show our people what kind of reading of the Scriptures was held among the Jews, and in his own pages or columns he described each of their editions individually; and those things which among them were added or taken away, he marked with certain signs affixed to the heads of the verses, and in another’s work, not in his own, he fixed his signs, so that we might know not what seems to us to be lacking or abounding, but what seems so to the Jews who contend against us." The same was Jerome's counsel when he translated the sacred Scriptures into Latin from the Hebrew. For in the preface to the book of Psalms he says: "I do not say this to bite at my predecessors, or because I think anything should be removed from them, whose translation, most diligently emended, I formerly gave to the men of my own tongue; but because it is one thing to read the Psalms in the Churches of those who believe in Christ, and another to answer the Jews who cavil at individual words." The same author, in his book *Apology against Rufinus*, says: "Have I, he says, spoken anything against the Septuagint Interpreters, whom, most diligently emended many years ago, I gave to the students of my own tongue, which I daily expound in the assembly of the brothers, and whose Psalms I sing with continual meditation? Was I so foolish that I would wish to forget in my old age what I learned in my childhood? My entire treatises are woven with the testimonies of these, my commentaries on the twelve prophets and my and the Sep- [alt-version omitted]

- ^Atuaginta editionem edisseruit. Et libro III Apologiae adversus eumdem Rufinum: "Tu Latinas, inquit, Scripturas de Graeco emendabis, et aliud Ecclesiis trades legendum, quam quod semel ab apostolis susceperunt; mihi non licebit post Septuaginta editionem, quam diligentissime emendatam meae linguae hominibus dedi, ad confutandos Judaeos, etiam ipsa exemplaria vertere, quae ipsi verissima confitentur; ut si quando adversum eos Christianis disputatio est, non habeant subterfugiendi diverticula, sed suomet potissimum mucrone feriantur?" Mox mecum emendabis te.

[Translation continues from the top of the column:]

as ^A their copies, and so that we may make use of what is current among them, even if it does not exist in our own books. For if our preparation in discussions with them is of this kind, they will not despise us, nor, as is their habit, will they laugh at those of the nations who believe, as though they were ignorant of the truth and of what is written among them. Let these things then be said regarding the fact that the story of Susanna does not exist among the Hebrews.

But let us look at the charges you bring against the discourse. And first, let us begin with that which might have the power to deter one from accepting the history; this is the matter of the paronomasia (wordplay) of the *prinos* (holm-oak) with *prisis* (sawing), and of the *schinos* (mastic-tree) with *schisis* (cleaving). ^B Concerning this you pronounced, as though you had grasped the manner in which such things happen to be homophonous in Greek speech, whereas in the Hebrew tongue they are utterly different; but I still hesitate. For being anxious about this passage, since I myself was in doubt, I consulted not a few Hebrews, inquiring how the *prinos* is named among them, and how they say "to saw," and further, into what they translate the plant *schinos*, and how they name "a cleaving." They said they were ignorant of the Greek terms *prinos* and *schinos*, and they demanded that the trees be shown to them so that they might know what kind of terms they assign to them. And (for truth is beloved) I did not hesitate to display the ^C woods themselves to their sight. Another said that he could not affirm how things that were nowhere named in the Scriptures were said in Hebrew; but that it is ready at hand for one who is in doubt to use a Syriac word instead of a Hebrew one. And he said that even among the very wise, certain terms are sometimes sought for. "If, therefore," he said, "you can show that the *schinos* or the *prinos* is named anywhere in any Scripture, there we will certainly find what we are looking for, and the derivation of the names that arises therefrom. But if they are named nowhere, that too escapes us." Since, therefore, these things were said by the Hebrews with whom I associated, who did not acknowledge the history, I am cautious about pronouncing whether the equivalence of the ^D paronomasia in these matters is preserved among the Hebrews or not; but how you are so certain, perhaps you yourself know.

I do remember, however, a studious Hebrew, and one who was called among them the son of a wise man, and who was educated in this study of a foreign language, that he might labor so that the Jews would no longer insult the Churches regarding the falsity of the Scriptures. Include here what is said by the same Jerome in the prefaces to the Paralipomena and in the Psalter rendered into Latin from the Hebrew at the request of Sophronius regarding the Jews mocking and slandering the Scriptures of Christians. For the son was not called "wise," but was the son of a father who was called "wise."

^A And from this point, as if the history of Susanna were not to be rejected, I learned also the names of the elders, as they are found in Jeremiah, in this manner: "May the Lord make you as Zedekiah and as Achiab," whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire because of the wickedness which they wrought in Israel. ^B But how is the one sawed in two by an angel, while the other is split asunder? It must be said that these things are not prophesied to them for the present age, but in the judgment of God after their departure from here. For even as the wicked steward saying, "My lord delays to come," and because of this occupies himself in drunkenness, and eats and drinks with the drunkards, and beats his fellow servants, the lord, coming, "will cut him in two, and will put his portion with the unbelievers"; so also these, who were indeed called elders but managed their stewardship poorly, analogously to the wicked steward who is cut in two there, certain angels set over punishments will inflict these things. And the one shall split ^C "the one grown old in evil days," who judged unjust judgments, condemning the innocent and releasing the guilty; and the other shall saw asunder "one who is a seed of Canaan and not of Judah," who was deceived by beauty and whose heart was perverted by desire.

8. I know also another Hebrew who brought forward such traditions regarding these elders, namely, that because those in the captivity were hoping to be delivered from the servitude under their enemies through the advent of Christ, these elders made pretense as though they knew how to interpret the things concerning Christ; and each of them, in turn, would chance upon a woman whom he desired to corrupt, and would say in secret, as it were, that it had been given to him by God to beget Christ; and thereby, being deceived ^D by the hope of giving birth to the Christ, the woman would yield herself to the deceiver, and thus the woman would allow herself to be seduced, offering her own body to the deceiver.

^A And in this way the elders Achiab and Sedecias used to commit adultery with the wives of the citizens. Therefore, it is rightly said by Daniel of the one, "grown old in evil days," 18 and the other heard: "Thus you used to do to the daughters of Israel, and they, through fear, would associate with you; but the daughter of Juda could not endure your wickedness." For perhaps deceit and fear, whose power is great over women, caused them to offer their bodies to these so-called elders.

9. But, you may perhaps ask in response to this, why then is this history not found among them in Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand down such things regarding it? I must reply to this that whatever they have been able to find of the things containing the accusation of the elders, princes, and judges, they have removed from the knowledge of the people, some of which are preserved in the apocrypha. ^B And we shall give an example of this regarding what is chronicled about Isaiah, and confirmed by the witness of the Epistle to the Hebrews, though it is written in none of the manifest books. For speaking of the prophets and what they suffered, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says: "They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they died by the slaughter of the sword." 19 For we might ask to whom the term "they were sawn asunder" refers, according to some ancient custom, not only Hebrew but also Greek, of speaking in the plural about one person? It is manifest that traditions report that Isaiah the prophet was sawn asunder, 20 and this is carried in a certain apocryphon; which the Jews perhaps deliberately corrupted, having inserted certain expressions inappropriate to the Scripture, so that the whole might be disbelieved. ^C But it is likely that someone, being troubled by the proof of these things, will make use of the intent of those who reject the Epistle as not written by Paul; against whom we have need of other arguments separately.

18 Dan. xiii, 57. 19 Heb. xi, 37. 20 They claim therefore that Isaiah was sawn asunder by the people, as if he were a transgressor of the law and one announcing something outside the Scriptures. For Scripture says: "No one shall see my face, and live." Yet this one says: "I saw the Lord Sabaoth." Moses, they used to say, did not see him, and you have seen him? And on account of this they sawed him in half. That apocryphal book, by which Origen says his martyrdom is described, is, as Huetius conjectures, that which Epiphanius mentions in the heresy of the Archontics, page 130, and in that of Hierax, page 304, and pseudo-Clement in the Apostolic Constitutions, book VI, chapter 16, enumerating the apocryphal books in these words: "In ancient times some wrote apocryphal books of Moses, and Enoch, and Adam, and Isaiah, and David, and Elias, and of the three patriarchs; books, I say, pestiferous and enemies of the truth."

^A ...that we may demonstrate that it is Paul’s. I shall produce, therefore, for the present, from the Gospel, the things testified by Jesus Christ concerning the prophets, and a history which is indeed related by Him, but which is missing in the ancient Scriptures, because it also contains a condemnation of the unrighteous judges in Israel. The saying spoken by the Savior is as follows: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the monuments of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye witness to yourselves, that ye are the children of them who killed the prophets. And ye fill up the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how shall ye escape from the judgment of hell? Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them ye shall scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation.” And what follows these, and is not discordant with the preceding, is thus: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” And let us see if it must not be said, in these matters, that the Savior is indeed truthful, but that the Scriptures are not found in which those things which are narrated by Him exist; for those who build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the monuments of the righteous, condemning those things which the elders dared against the righteous and the prophets, say: “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been their companions in the blood of the prophets.” Let some one, therefore, tell us in whose ^B prophets’ blood...

^C ...in style, that is, in phrasing; but the Epistle is more Hellenic in its composition of language, as anyone who knows how to judge differences of style would admit. And again, that the thoughts of the Epistle are admirable, and it is not without reason that the ancients have handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the Epistle, God indeed knows the truth; but the account that has reached us is that some say that Clement, who became bishop of the Romans, wrote the Epistle; and some that Luke, who wrote the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it. ^D I, however, am of the opinion that the thoughts themselves are the Apostle’s, but the diction and the composition of the language are those of some other person, who recorded the things spoken by the Apostle, and, as it were, reduced to commentaries things he had heard from the master. Consequently, if any Church regards this Epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this; for it is not without reason that the ancients have handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote it in truth, I am of the opinion that it is known only to God. But the writers whose monuments have reached us refer it, some to Clement, bishop of the city of Rome, and some to Luke, who gave to letters the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.

The style of the epistle which is inscribed to the Hebrews

have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.” Let someone, then, tell us: with the blood of which prophets? For where is anything of this kind recorded 65 concerning Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or any of the twelve, or Daniel? But that Zechariah, the son of Barachiah 66, was slain between the temple and the altar, we have learned from Jesus, indeed, but we have not known it from any other Scripture. Wherefore, I suppose that nothing else has been contrived, but that those who are considered wise, and rulers, and elders of the people took away such things as contained an accusation against them before the people. There is nothing wonderful, then, if even the history of Susanna—who was plotted against by licentious elders—the men who were not far from the disposition of those elders stole away and removed from the Scriptures. And in the Acts of the Apostles, Stephen, bearing witness ^B Acts VII, 52. [to the fact that the prophets were persecuted,] also says: “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers.” Whoever receives the Acts of the Apostles will confess that Stephen spoke the truth; etc. [alt-version omitted] ^{C D}

but that it is possible to demonstrate from the Old Testament how justly he blames the fathers of those who do not believe in Jesus, as having persecuted the prophets and killed them, cannot be shown from the books of the New 68 Testament. And Paul, in his first Epistle to the Thessalonians, testifying these things concerning the Jews, says: “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judæa are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved.” And I think I have demonstrated in what has been set forth, that there is nothing absurd in the history having occurred, and the cruelty perpetrated with much lust against Susanna by the elders who then were, having indeed been written by the providence of the Spirit, but having been later, as the same Spirit might say, secretly removed by the rulers of Sodom.

10 Furthermore, you maintained that Daniel is said by this Scripture to have exclaimed, being taken by the Spirit, that the judgment was unjust, but that the Scripture which is confessedly his holds him prophesying in another manner, that is, through visions, and dreams, and the appearance of an angel, but nowhere by prophetic inspiration. But you seem to me not to have sufficiently observed that “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,” ^C spoke not only to all of them, but also to each one individually. If you observe, you will find that divine dreams, and angelic apparitions, and inspirations all occurred to the same saints. It is sufficient for the present to use as a testimony what is written concerning Jacob, who narrates these things regarding divine dreams: “And it came to pass, when the sheep conceived, that I beheld with mine eyes in a dream, and, behold, the he-goats and the rams leaped upon the sheep and the goats, white, and ring-streaked, and grisled, and speckled. And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob. And I said, What is it? And he said, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the he-goats and the rams which leap upon the sheep and the goats are white, ring-streaked, grisled, and speckled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee. I am the God who appeared unto thee in the place of God, where thou anointedst a pillar for me, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now therefore arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred.” As for the appearance which

is more excellent, these things have been said about him: “And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said unto him, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel shall thy name be: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. And the sun rose upon him ^B when he passed over Peniel.” That he also prophesies by inspiration is plain from these words: “And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days. Gather yourselves together, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father. Reuben, my firstborn, thou art my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power: unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch.” In like manner the blessings given to the others, being prophecies, were uttered by ^C inspiration. It is nothing wonderful, then, that Daniel also at one time spoke by inspiration, as when he examined the elders, and at another time by dreams, as you suggest, or by visions, and at other times the appearance of an angel occurred to him.

As for your other difficulties, they seemed to me to have been stated in a rather unseemly manner, and not to comport with the piety that becomes you; it is better to set out what was written by you in your own words, thus: “Moreover, after he has exclaimed in such a wondrous way, he reproves them in a manner so altogether unusual that not even Philistion the mime could use it. For it was not enough for him to have rebuked ^D them by the Spirit, but, having separated each of them from the other, he asks where he saw her committing adultery. And because one said ‘under a holm-oak,’ he answers that the angel would saw him asunder; and to the other who said ‘under a mastic tree,’ he similarly threatens that he would be rent in asunder.” For it is time to compare with the mime of those Philistians another thing not dissimilar from the third book of Kings, which you yourself will confess to have been correctly recorded. These are the words: “Then appeared two women that were harlots unto the king, and stood before him. And the one woman said, O my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child with her in the house. And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also.”

^A And the son of this woman died in the night, because she slept upon him. And she arose at midnight, and took my son from my arms, and your handmaid was asleep. And she laid him in her bosom, and she laid her dead son in my bosom. And I arose in the morning to nurse my son, and he was dead. And behold, I viewed him in the morning, and behold, he was not my son whom I had borne. And the other woman said: “Not so; but my son is the living one, and your son is the dead one.” And the other also said: “No, but my son is the living one, and your son is the dead one.” And they spoke before the king, and the king said to them: “You say: ‘This is my son who is living, and the son of this woman is dead.’ And you say: ‘No, but my son is the living one, and your son is the dead one.’” And the king said: “Bring me a sword.” And they brought the sword before the king. And the king said: “Divide the living child into two, and give half to this one, and half to that one.” And the woman whose son was living answered the king, for her bowels were moved for her son, and said: “To me, my lord; give her the living child, and do not put it to death.” But the other said: “Let it be neither to me nor to her; divide it.” And the king answered and said: “Give the child to her who said: ‘Give her this, and do not put it to death;’ for she is his mother.” And all Israel heard the judgment which the king had judged, and they feared before the king, because they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to execute judgment (3 Kings III, 16 et seqq.). ^C For indeed, if it were permitted to speak cavillingly concerning those matters which are read in the Churches, the story of the two harlots would rather deserve to be compared to the mime of Philistion than the story of the venerable Susanna. And just as it was not sufficient for the persuasion of the people that Solomon should say: “Give to this woman the living child, for she is his mother,” so it would not have sufficed for the elders to be rebuked by Daniel, unless he had convicted them from their own mouths, as both said they had seen her lying with a young man under a certain tree, yet they by no means agreed as to what kind of tree it was. And because, as if you had certain knowledge of it, you said that Daniel had judged the elders by inspiration, perhaps indeed convicting them in this way, or perhaps in another, observe: even these things which were done by Daniel appear to me similar to the judgment of Solomon, of which Scripture bears witness that the people saw that the wisdom of God was in him to execute judgment. This indeed could be said concerning Daniel, since he flourished with wisdom to execute judgment, that the elders were judged by him in the manner which is written. ^D And this also, I had almost forgotten, which it is necessary for me to add concerning the play upon words, namely that in our Scriptures there exist certain so-to-speak etymologies—such as "holm-oak" (prinos) and "to saw" (prisein), or "mastic-tree" (schinos) and "to split" (schisein)—which are—

^A properly belonging to the Hebrews, but not so with us. It is no wonder, then, that those who translated the history of Susanna took care to find some derivative name that might either harmonize with the Hebrew—for I do not hold this as certain—or maintain an analogy with the Hebrew consonant. How this is to be found in our own Scripture, we shall show by an example. Adam says regarding the woman built by God from the side of the man: "This shall be called woman, because she was taken from her man." The Hebrews say that the woman is called "essa," and that this word signifies that which corresponds to "I will take," as is clear from this: "Chos Isuoth essa," which is interpreted: "I will take the cup of salvation." And the man is called "is," as is evident from this: "Esre ais," which is: "Blessed is the man." According to the Hebrews, therefore, "is" signifies man, and "essa" signifies virago, because she was taken from her man. Thus, it is no wonder if certain interpreters of the Hebrew text of Susanna—which has long existed among them in their secret writings, as is likely, and has been preserved among ^B those who are more learned and more eager for truth—have either rendered the words properly or discovered something that corresponds to the Hebrew derivatives, so that we Greeks might be able to follow them. For in many other instances, it is possible to find certain things rendered by the interpreters with purposeful economy, which we have observed by examining all the editions in comparison with one another.

"I will repay," he says, "first double their iniquities," and so on. Whether some individuals, not understanding the word "first," removed it from the Scripture, or whether the Seventy, using economy, removed it, God knows. We, however, comparing it with the other editions, have found it written: "and I will repay first double their iniquities." ^C Moreover, Theodotion suspected a different etymology, saying: "This shall be called assumption, because she was taken from her man." For indeed "issa," according to the variation of the accent, can also be understood as "assumption." Now, since Origen derives the woman's name, "Essa," just as Theodotion does, from the root *n-s-a* (*sumpsit*), in order that his reasoning might hold firm and that some etymology might be preserved in the Greek words, he should have read the passage of Genesis II, 23, which he cited a little earlier, in this way, or as it is, which Jerome says can be understood as *Issa* according to the variation of the accent, and as *assumption*. This is most true, if *essa* is deduced from the word *n-s-a*, meaning "he has taken," "he has assumed." For by "variation of accent" the holy doctor understands nothing other than a varied pronunciation of the letter. Wherefore it must be said that Theodotion, if he truly wished to render the Hebrew properly, desired to deduce both "assumption" and "she was taken" from the single root *n-s-a*, completely neglecting the following passive form. However, it seems ^D to me far more likely that he did not wish to render strictly what is in the Hebrew text, but rather, using economy, devised another explanation entirely, interpreting "Issa" as "assumption," so as to play with "she is taken"—the word by which it is expressed.

13. Furthermore, these things are objected against your words: "How, while they were captives in Babylon, having been sold by the playing of dice, ^A and cast out unburied in the squares, as it is recounted in the former captivity of Israel, with their children torn from them for eunuchism, and their daughters for concubines, as 88 was prophesied, did these [people] judge concerning the death [of Susanna], and that too, directed at the wife of their king, Joakim, whom the king of Babylon had made the sharer of his throne? But if this was not he, but another Joakim of the people, whence did such a captive have such a mansion, and whence had he so elegant and spacious a garden? Whence indeed do you have it that you said these were sold by the playing of dice, and cast into the squares unburied, unless, as far as I know, it is from Tobias?" ^B But we ought to know that the Hebrews do not use Tobias, nor Judith. For they do not even have these books among the apocrypha in Hebrew, as we have learned by inquiring of them. But since the Churches use Tobias, it must be known that even in captivity some of the captives were rich, and conducted their affairs well. Tobias himself says: "Because I was mindful of God with all my soul, the Most High gave me grace and the appearance [of favor] before Nemessarus, and I was his purchaser; and I journeyed into Media, and I deposited with Gabelus, the brother of Gabrias, in Rages 93 of Media, ten talents of silver." And as a rich man, he adds this: ^C "In the days of Nemessarus I performed many alms-deeds for my brothers. My bread I gave to the hungry, and clothing to the naked; and if I saw any one from the lineage of Nineveh dead and cast behind the wall, I buried him; and if Sennacherim the king had killed anyone when he came fleeing from Judea, I buried them by stealth; for he killed many in his wrath." Consider whether this great catalog of Tobias's good deeds does not demonstrate great wealth and resources, and especially that which he adds, saying: "When I knew that I was sought for death, I retreated in fear, and all my goods were plundered." But also another captive, Dachiarus, the son of the brother of Tobias, was a prefect—

set over all the administration ^A of the kingdom of king Acherdon, and over all the governance. And it is said that Dachiarus was a cupbearer, and in charge of the signet ring, and an administrator, and an accountant. Mordecai also frequented the king’s court and had such great freedom of speech with him that he was even recorded among the benefactors of Artaxerxes. Furthermore, in the book of Ezra, Nehemiah is the king’s cupbearer and his eunuch, a Hebrew by race, who requested the building of the temple and obtained it, so that he was permitted, with many others, to go and restore the temple. What is so wonderful, then, if some man named Joakim had a garden, a house, and an estate—whether it was expensive or modest? For the Scripture does not clearly declare such a thing.

But you say, "How did they pass judgment of death while they were in captivity?" I do not know why you are in doubt ^B as to whether Susanna was the wife of the king, because of the homonymy of Joakim and Susanna. It must be said that it is nothing strange that, once great nations were subdued, it was granted by the king that the captives might use their own laws and courts. And even now, with the Romans reigning and the Jews paying the didrachm to them, they have whatever authority the Caesar grants them over themselves.

14. But, you ask, "How did they pass sentence of death while they were in captivity?" I do not know precisely for what reason it is ^C doubted whether Susanna was the wife of the king, on account of the ambiguity of the name Joakim. I reply: nothing unusual has occurred if, once great nations were subdued, it was granted by the king that the captives might use their own laws and courts. Certainly, even now, when the Jews pay the didrachm to the reigning Romans, they possess whatever authority is granted them by Caesar.

That this is so is testified clearly by Strabo the Cappadocian, citing Josephus, in book 14 of the *Jewish Antiquities*, chapter 12, who relates his words as follows: "There were four classes in the city of the Cyrenians: citizens, farmers, resident aliens, and fourth, the Jews. This has now crept into every city, and it is not easy to find a place in the inhabited world that has not received this tribe and is not dominated by it. It came to pass that Egypt and Cyrene, since they happened to have the same rulers, along with many other regions, emulated this, and they fed the Jewish ^D institutions significantly and caused them to increase, using the ancestral laws of the Jews. Even in Egypt, there is a recognized settlement of Jews, and apart from that, a large part of the city of Alexandria was set apart for this race. And an ethnarch is appointed for them, who governs the nation and decides cases and takes care of contracts and ordinances, just as if he were the ruler of an independent commonwealth."

^A We who have had experience of this know that it is so, even while the emperor is reigning over the nation. Secret judicial proceedings also take place according to the law, and some are sentenced to death [(5)]—though this is done neither with complete freedom to act in this regard, nor without the reigning emperor knowing it; and having spent a long time in the country of the nation, we have learned and become fully convinced of this. And yet, it is recorded that under the Romans [(4)] there are only two tribes, that of Judah and Benjamin; and let the Levitical one also be included. But as for the [(5)] ten tribes that existed alongside the people of Judah—that is, Israel—it is likely that the Assyrians, being satisfied with having them under their own rule, allowed them their own courts of justice.

I found this also in your letter, in these very words: ^B "Finally, among so many prophets who have gone before, none of those who followed has made use of the sentiment of another in the same words. For their speech, being true, did not need to beg; but this one, when threatening one of them, reminds you [(7)] of the Lord saying: 'You shall not kill the innocent and the just.'" and I was astonished, since you have had much practice in examining and meditating upon the Scriptures, that you have not observed the prophets using the words of other prophets in almost the same terms. For who among the many believers is unaware of what is written in Isaiah: [(8)] "And it shall be in the last days that the mountain of the Lord shall be manifest, and the house of God at the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall come to it. And many peoples shall go and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will declare to us his way, ^C and we will walk in it; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem [(9)]. And he shall judge between the nations, and shall judge a great people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; and nation shall not take up sword against nation, and they shall not learn to fight anymore." And the passage in Micah, which is entirely similar to these and in the same words, is as follows: “And it shall be in the last days manifest...”.

^D [(2)] The ethnarch. Josephus calls this official an "archon" in the Greek fashion, as in *Jewish War* VII, 9. In another place, *Antiquities* XIX, 4, he calls him "ethnarch," and "archon of the nation," and even "patriarch." Elsewhere he is so called by Origen in *De Principiis* IV, 1, and by Epiphanius, *Haer.* 50, p. 60.

[(3)] That the Jews enjoyed such authority, especially in Phrygia, is evident from the responses of a certain orthodox person to the Montanists in Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History* V, 16: “Answer us, we beseech you by God: is there any one of them who, from the time of Montanus and the women who first began to chatter, has been persecuted by the Jews, or put to death by the impious? Certainly none. Nor has any one of them ever been seized or crucified for the name of Christ. Nor has any woman ever been whipped or stoned in the synagogues of the Jews? Nowhere, truly, never. Indeed, Montanus and Maximilla are said to have died by a far different kind of death.”

[(4)] Under the Romans. *Sub Romanis*. Some read "under the Babylonians." However, it seems rightly said that there were two tribes under the Romans, so that the argument may be from the lesser to the greater: namely, if two tribes had such great power under the Romans, it is to be believed that the ten tribes under the Assyrians had the same or greater. WETSTENIUS.

[(5)] *Codex* omits the particle *de*. [(6)] WETSTENIUS. *legentem* (reading), and shortly after, *ho logos tes aletheias* (the word of truth) is badly placed and can be absent from this place without loss of meaning. [(7)] *Reminds you*. Missing in the *Epistola ad Africanum*. [(8)] God. *Unus codex*: of the Lord. Shortly after, *ep' akrou* (at the top), *hexousin en aute panta* (they shall come into it, all...). [(9)] *Aldus*: from Jerusalem. Shortly after, *elezgei laon polun* (he shall reprove a great people). *Codex Basileensis*: he shall reprove a great people.

^A The mountain of the Lord, prepared on the summit of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and peoples shall hasten to it, and many nations shall go, and they shall say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, and they shall show us his way, and we shall walk in his paths; for out of Sion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge in the midst of many peoples, and shall reprove strong nations even far off, and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into sickles; and nation shall no longer take up the sword against nation, and they shall no longer learn to do battle.

Furthermore, in the first book of Chronicles, the psalm set in the hand of Asaph and his brothers for the praising of the Lord, whose beginning is: "Confess and call upon him by his name," in most copies at the beginning is equivalent to the [104th] psalm, as far as the words: "And do not act wickedly among my prophets"; but after this, it is similar to the 95th psalm from its beginning, which is roughly: "Sing to the Lord, all the earth," as far as the words: "Because he comes to judge the earth." But since it would have been long to set down the words themselves, we have said these few things regarding the matter. You will find also regarding not bearing a burden on the day of the Sabbath written not only in Moses, but also in Jeremiah. Likewise, concerning the Passover and the priestly laws, you will find [them] both in Moses and in the final chapters of Ezekiel. And I would have set down the words themselves, and many others, had I not seen that the time for writing to you was cut short by the scarcity ^B of our days in Nicomedia.

Besides these things, you also claimed that the character of the style differs; which to me did not seem so at all. And these are the things I have answered in my defense; and it would have been possible, above all, after the accusations, to speak an encomium of the history of Susanna, proceeding word by word and showing the excellence of what is understood, which someone among those who have studied the divine things diligently and sufficiently will be able to compose privately. These things I have answered to what you call your "assaults," and I write back; would that I were able to instruct! But now I do not attribute such things to myself. My lord and holy brother Ambrose, who co-labored with me in the dictation of this letter and who, having been present for the whole of it, corrected those things in which he wished to make adjustments, greets you. His most faithful wife, Marcella, together with ^C their children, and Anicetus, also greet you. You greet our excellent pope Apollinarius, and those who love us.