Annotatio CCL

”And there was a man dwelling in Babylon, and his name [was] Joachim.” — Daniel 13:1

Julius Africanus, when he doubted concerning the truth of the history of Susanna, refuted Origen in a brief epistle, in which he embraced, most tersely, eight conjectures inferring to him[self] a suspicion of falsity.¹ The copy of the epistle thus reads:

“Hail, from Africanus, to my lord, and son, and most honored of all men, Origen. When thou wast holding a sacred disputation with that friend of thine, and wast making mention of the prophecy [uttered] by Daniel in [his] youth, I was, at that time, as was fitting, embracing [it]. [1.] But I wonder by what means it has escaped thee that this part of the book is spurious; for this segment of the book, though it is indeed otherwise a pleasing little work, is nevertheless a little work which is shown by many [tokens], and is convicted, to be of a modern manner, and fabricated in Greek by a Greek author.² [2.] First indeed, because, when Susanna had been ordered to die, the Prophet, seized by the spirit, cried out that the sentence had been unjustly brought forth — whereas Daniel prophesies in another mode through the whole time, namely by visions, and dreams, and the apparition of an Angel, but not by prophetic inspiration. [3.] Then afterward, when he had spoken so admirably, he uses toward the people and the elders that kind of confutation which would be most remote from the common expectation, and which not even that Philistine mime would have used: inasmuch as, not content with the rebuke effected through the spirit, he interrogates each of the two, separated from the other, apart, in what place he had seen her committing adultery; and when the one had said ‘under a holm-oak’ [prinos], he answered that it would come to pass that the Angel would saw [seco] him; likewise threatening cutting to the other, who had answered that he had seen her under a mastic-tree [schinos]. [4.] For in the Greek words such [words] have the same sound — παρὰ τὴν πρῖνον, πρῖσαι [from the holm-oak, to saw], and παρὰ τὴν σχῖνον, σχίσαι [from the mastic, to split]; but in the Hebrew tongue they have an altogether different sound. Moreover, from the Hebrew are translated to the Greeks whatsoever words are reported of the old Testament. [5.] Besides, by what means — since they were captives among the Chaldaeans in Babylon, and the slain were thrown out into the streets unburied (as the histories narrate concerning the first captivity of Israel), and their sons were torn away to be made eunuchs, and their daughters concubines, as the Prophets had foretold — do these [elders] pronounce [capital] judgment?³ [6.] And — what thou mightest wonder at more — against Joachim, the king of those very [people], whom the king of the Babylonians had made assessor to himself? But if this is not that Joachim, but some other one of the people, whence [came] this captive dwelling? whence to him [that] spacious garden? [7.] But before all these things, this particle of this book, with the other two particles which are at the end of Daniel, is not similar to [the] Daniel which is received by the Hebrews; nay, even the character of the diction differs. [8.] But to all these let it be added, that — although so many Prophets have preceded — [none] thenceforth used the testimony of another, inasmuch as their truthful speech begged [borrowed] from nowhere else; but here the one, threatening the other, alludes to the Lord saying, ‘The innocent and just thou shalt not slay.’⁴ From all these things I judge that this segment of the book was added. I have knocked; do thou, writing back, instruct [me]. Salute all my lords; and thee also all the learned [men] salute; and I pray thee to be well, together with thy company — and this I pray from [my] heart.”

To this epistle Origen responded with a learned and magnificent epistle; which, since, on account of its prolixity, it would not be fitting, into this ### ANNOTATIO CCL (concluded)

“And there was a man dwelling in Babylon, and his name [was] Joachim.” — Daniel 13:1

(Origen’s reply, since it would not be fitting to stuff his whole long letter into this place, is given only in the summary of its solutions to Africanus’s arguments:)

First,⁵ as to that which he says — that the little work of Susanna is neither genuine, nor written in Hebrew, but in Greek, and by a modern author — it is [held as] uncertain; and it will be more credible that it was of old written by its author either in Hebrew or in Syriac, and preserved among the books stored apart by the studious lovers of truth, [and] then translated by a Greek interpreter. But even if we should grant [it] to be the work not of a Hebrew but of a Greek writer, it is nevertheless not on that account to be repudiated as spurious and fabricated — especially since credit is not withheld from those [pieces] among the Hebrews — lest, by the same reasoning, we be compelled to cast away many scriptures of the same kind received by the Church, and mingled among the sacred volumes: such as are the Prayer of Sidrach, Misac, and Abdenago [Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego]; the Hymn of the three children in the book of Daniel; the Prayer of Esther, and the Prayer of Mardochaeus [Mordecai]; the Epistle of Aman [Haman], and the Epistle of Mardochaeus in the book of Ezra; and other things similar to these, which our fathers received for the edification of the Church, whose bounds, constituted for us, we ought by no means to transgress.

Second, when he says that Daniel nowhere prophesied [being] seized by prophetic inspiration, but only by dreams, and visions, and angelic apparition, he seems to have too little observed that [saying] of Paul,⁶ “In many ways and in many manners God spoke of old to the Prophets” — for nothing hinders but that one and the same Prophet may, together with dreams, visions, and Angelic apparitions, obtain also the prophetic inspiration: as in the old Scripture innumerable examples of this matter may everywhere be seen in the Prophets.

Third, he does too little gravely, when he compares the writer of this book to the Philistine mime, because Daniel — according to the counsel of human prudence — interrogated the elders, separated apart, each of the two severally, as if it were not enough that the spirit had, by its breath, so admirably rebuked them: for by this reasoning it will be permitted to deride that admirable example of judging, similar to this, which the divine Scripture relates that Solomon employed in judging the cause of the two harlots concerning the surviving little infant of the litigants.⁷ Wherefore it is to be believed that, as it was not enough, for persuading the people, that Solomon — although breathed upon by the divine spirit — should say, “Give to this [woman] the living [infant], for she is its mother,” but it behoved that he [proceed] to command the infant to be divided into two parts, that all the people, by the experiment of maternal charity, might recognize the true mother of the infant: so it was not enough for Daniel to rebuke the elders, unless he had moreover received [a means] whence he might convict them out of their own mouth before the universal multitude.

Fourth, as to what he says — that the Greek allusion of πρῖνος to πρῖσις, and of σχῖνος to σχίσις, is not had among the Hebrews, but [that they are] altogether diverse words — it is dissolved in three ways. First, because it is uncertain whether the words which among the Hebrews signify the same which among the Greeks πρῖνος and πρῖσαι, and σχῖνος and σχίσαι [signify], so differ among themselves that they have no similitude of sound; since indeed, in the sacred volumes of the Hebrews, no mention is ever made of the plants which are signified by the names πρῖνος⁸ and σχῖνος,⁹

(left column continues into the right column)

[so that] no one of the Hebrews can affirm with certainty how these [words] allude in Hebrew, whose Hebrew names are unknown. Then, it is also credible that Daniel used, for the Hebrew tongue, Syriac words, which had such a consonance of denomination [a like wordplay]. Finally, perhaps it happened that, when the Greek interpreter wished to express — as the matter demanded — the force of the Hebrew allusion, and could not [do so directly], he, according to a certain dispensation [licence] conceded to interpreters, found the names of other plants which among the Greeks should have a similar derivation, and [thus] more lucidly explain the proposed sentence of Daniel.

Fifth, when he doubts by what means the captives had the right of bringing judgment concerning death, he ought not to wonder if the Jews obtained from the king of Babylon the power of living under their own laws and judgments — since he sees that, in his own time, the same [Jews] received from the Roman Emperors, under whose captivity they live, the right of life and death over their own [people].

Sixth, [it] is eluded with the same facility, that which he asks — whence, to the captive Joachim, a man of private condition, [there was] a magnificent house and garden:¹⁰ for neither is this to be wondered at, since in the sacred letters we read that Mardochaeus, Nehemiah, and very many others were rich captives, and prosperous in their captivity.

Seventh, as to what he says — that this segment does not have similitude with the volume of Daniel, and that the character [style] of each is diverse — he seems to have pronounced [this] from his own judgment and taste:¹¹ for if anyone attentively examine both, he will find no very great dissimilitude in the two.

Eighth, when he asserts that no one of the Prophets was wont to use the sayings of another Prophet, he is deceived: for very frequently the one uses the testimonies of the other in the same sense, and in nearly the same words — as may be seen in Micah, saying,¹² “And it shall be in the last days, the mountain of the Lord [shall be] prepared,” etc. — which words are written in Isaiah.

These things we have briefly touched upon from the Origenic epistle, in the close of which Origen himself thus inferred: “These things I would say for the defending of the history of Susanna; and would that I could celebrate the Scripture of Susanna with an encomium — especially after the accusations [made against it] — both by dwelling upon each of its words, and by showing [its] exquisite senses; which [is] a thing that anyone who has studiously and abundantly meditated in the divine [Scriptures] could privately compose.”