A that this history is not found in the Hebrew book of Daniel, but was added later from all these sources, as he says, thinking the passage to be an interpolation. That the history truly occurred and the cruelty was perpetrated with great licentiousness by those elders who then were against Susanna, and was written by the providence of the Spirit, but B was later secretly removed by the princes of Sodom, as the same Spirit said: ‹It is wonderful if the history regarding Susanna, which was true and was plotted against by licentious elders, was stolen and removed by those who were not far from the disposition of those elders, regarding which it appeared to me not altogether so.› C Regarding the puns [on the names of trees] in Greek, it is necessary to demonstrate this also from the Scriptures; for the prophecies are full of such examples. And regarding Susanna, God knowing all things before their birth, [it is] thus said: "O eternal God, D who knowest the hidden things, who knowest all things before their birth, thou knowest that they have borne false witness against me."
AFRICANUS’ LETTER TO ORIGEN ON THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA
Greetings, my lord and son, and most honorable of all, Origen, from Africanus. When you were holding the sacred dialogue with the Agnomon [the Ignorant/Hard-hearted One], you mentioned in your concern for the prophecy of Daniel, which—to the mind of Origen, who in his response to Africanus calls the man with whom he debated "Bassus," his friend—you said that when you were discoursing with your friend Bassus. All the manuscripts openly have "not" [index: entries preserved]
A You mentioned it as a young man, and at that time, as was fitting, I embraced it. However, I wonder how it escaped your notice that this part of the book is spurious. It is, indeed, written not ungracefully, but it is shown to be modern and fabricated, and is proven so in many ways. First, when Susanna was condemned to death, the prophet, seized by the Spirit, cried out that the sentence was unjust. But Daniel always prophesies in another manner, namely, after visions and dreams, and the sight of an angel comes to him, but not prophetic inspiration. Then, after he had cried out so miraculously, he refuted them in a way so entirely unusual that not even Philistion the mime would use it. For it was not B enough for him to have rebuked them by the breath of the Spirit, but he questions each one separately, apart from the other, where he had seen her committing adultery. And when one said under a holm-oak, he answers that the angel would *prisein* him, that is, would saw him asunder.
LETTER OF AFRICANUS TO ORIGEN ON THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA
A I greeted you then; but I wonder how it escaped your notice that this part of the book is spurious. For this passage, though gracefully written as a composition, is shown to be a modern forgery, and is refuted in many ways. For when Susanna was condemned to die, the prophet, seized by the Spirit, cried out that the sentence was unjust. But Daniel always prophesies in another manner, through visions and dreams, at all times; and he obtains the manifestations of an angel, but not by prophetic inspiration. Furthermore, after he had spoken so miraculously, he refuted them in a way so paradoxical that not even Philistion the mime B used it. For it was not enough for him to have rebuked them by the inspiration of the Spirit, but he separated each from the other and questioned them, asking where he had seen her committing adultery. And when one said under a holm-oak (ilice), he answers that the angel would "saw" (πρίσειν) him—by a play on words—in short, would cut him asunder.
C [...] Since the manuscript copies clearly contain the name Bassus, and since Origen in his response to Africanus calls the man with whom he disputed his friend Bassus; but others, finding it improbable that a heretic would be called a friend by Origen, change the words of his response—instead of *tῷ ἑταίρῳ ἡμῶν Βάσῳ* ("to our companion Bassus"), they alter it to *τῷ ἑτερογνώμονι Βάσῳ* ("to the heterodox Bassus"). Others, whether one reads "well-minded" or "ill-minded," think this is another name for Bassus. But who this Bassus was cannot be stated for certain. Origen in a letter to certain dear ones of his in Alexandria has this to say: "A certain author of a heresy, when a dispute had been held among us in the presence of many, and having received a transcript from those who had written down the record, added what he wished, took away what he did not wish, and changed what he saw fit: circulating it as if in our name, mocking, and displaying the things which he himself had written. Because of which the brethren who are in Palestine, being indignant, sent to me at Athens a man to receive from me the authentic copy." And yet, the dispute of Origen with Bassus also seems to have been held in Palestine, where Africanus, who was present at it, was staying. It can therefore be conjectured that Bassus is the author of the heresy about whom Adamantius complains in the above-mentioned letter; but it will be a mere conjecture. The same should be thought concerning Gaius Bassus, whom Philastrius (*De haeres.* p. 19) numbers among the Valentinian heretics. For although Philastrius places him among those who preceded Cerdo, he joins him at the same time to Heracleon, Marcus, and other Valentinians who lived after Cerdo was dead. Wherefore nothing prevents him from being taken for that same Bassus with whom Origen disputed. The error common to all the Valentinians was that men are by nature either good or bad. Adamantius refutes this error everywhere D and sometimes uses the history of Susanna in verse 56. Thus he says in *Tome XX on John*, not long from the beginning: "For just as there are some who are 'seed of Abraham,' so others, as Daniel says, are 'seed of Canaan and not of Judah.'"
[...] [alt-version omitted] ... [index: entries preserved]
A ...or to one who has spoken of the *schinos* (lentisk), he threatens that he shall be *schisthenta* (torn asunder) in a manner similar to the *schinos*. Now, in the Greek tongue, it happens that such terms have a resonant similarity—*pristos* (sawn) from *prinos* (holm-oak), and *schistos* (torn) from *schinos*. But in the Hebrew, they are entirely distinct. Yet everything of the Old Testament that is in circulation was translated from the Hebrews into Greek.
But how—when they were captives in Babylon among the Chaldeans, playing with dice, B or cast out unburied in the streets, as is recorded in the previous captivity of Israel, and when their children were being torn away for eunuchs and their daughters for concubines, just as had been prophesied—could they judge concerning death, and that, too, in the case of the wife of their king, Joakim, whom the king of the Babylonians had made a partner of his throne? But if this was not he, but some other Joakim among the people, whence could a captive have such a house, and whence came that lush garden? And before all these things, this passage, together with two others C at the end, is not included in the Daniel that is accepted among the Jews. And besides all this, [concerning] so many... D
of the prophets who have gone before, none A of those following has made use of the exact thought of another. For their word, being true, was not in need; but this one, threatening the other of them, reminds us of what the Lord said: “You shall not kill the innocent and righteous.” B From all these things, it seems to me that the passage is an addition; but the character of the style is also different. I have knocked; do you resound to me, and by writing back, instruct me. Greet all my masters. All who know you greet you; I pray that you, together with your company, may be well and remain in good spirits.
ORIGEN’S LETTER TO AFRICANUS
C Origen to Africanus, beloved brother in God the Father through Jesus Christ his holy Child, greeting. Your letter, through which I learned of what you indicated regarding the story of Susanna, which is circulated in the churches in the copies of Daniel, seems brief indeed; but in a few words it contains many problems, each of which required not ordinary treatment, but so much that it would exceed the measure of a letter and grow into the bulk of a volume. And I, considering the mediocrity of my own talent for my part, lest I be found wanting in my own judgment, see that I lack the skill required for answering your letter; D add to this that even the few days I spent in Nicomedia were not sufficient for me, even in the way which I now...