A Letter from Origen to Africanus.

 2.  You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus, I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a you

 3.  And in many other of the sacred books I found sometimes more in our copies than in the Hebrew, sometimes less.  I shall adduce a few examples, sin

 4.  Again, through the whole of Job there are many passages in the Hebrew which are wanting in our copies, generally four or five verses, but sometime

 5.  In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, “Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers hav

 6.  Let us now look at the things you find fault with in the story itself.  And here let us begin with what would probably make any one averse to rece

 7.  Moreover, I remember hearing from a learned Hebrew, said among themselves to be the son of a wise man, and to have been specially trained to succe

 8.  And I knew another Hebrew, who told about these elders such traditions as the following:  that they pretended to the Jews in captivity, who were h

 9.  But probably to this you will say, Why then is the “History” not in their Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand down by tradition such stori

 10.  Your next objection is, that in this writing Daniel is said to have been seized by the Spirit, and to have cried out that the sentence was unjust

 11.  Your other objections are stated, as it appears to me, somewhat irreverently, and without the becoming spirit of piety.  I cannot do better than

 12.  I had nearly forgotten an additional remark I have to make about the prino-prisein and schino-schisein Essa chos isouoth essa is Hesre aïs is ess

 13.  You raise another objection, which I give in your own words:  “Moreover, how is it that they, who were captives among the Chaldeans, lost and won

 14.  But you say, “How could they who were in captivity pass sentence of death?” asserting, I know not on what grounds, that Susanna was the wife of a

 15.  I find in your letter yet another objection in these words:  “And add, that among all the many prophets who had been before, there is no one who

 Your last objection is, that the style is different.  This I cannot see.

11.  Your other objections are stated, as it appears to me, somewhat irreverently, and without the becoming spirit of piety.  I cannot do better than quote your very words:  “Then, after crying out in this extraordinary fashion, he detects them in a way no less incredible, which not even Philistion the play-writer would have resorted to.  For, not satisfied with rebuking them through the Spirit, he placed them apart, and asked them severally where they saw her committing adultery; and when the one said, ‘Under a holm-tree’ (prinos) he answered that the angel would saw him asunder (prisein); and in a similar fashion threatened the other, who said, ‘Under a mastich-tree’ (schinos), with being rent asunder.”

You might as reasonably compare to Philistion the play-writer, a story somewhat like this one, which is found in the third book of Kings, which you yourself will admit to be well written.  Here is what we read in Kings:—

“Then there appeared two women that were harlots before the king, and stood before him.  And the one woman said, To me, my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house; and we were delivered in the house.  And it came to pass, the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also:  and we were together; there is no one in our house except us two.  And this woman’s child died in the night; because she overlaid it.  And she arose at midnight, and took my son from my arms.  And thine handmaid slept.  And she laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom.  And I arose in the morning to give my child suck, and he was dead; but when I had considered it in the morning, behold, it was not my son which I did bear.  And the other woman said, Nay; the dead is thy son, but the living is my son.  And the other said, No; the living is my son, but the dead is thy son.  Thus they spake before the king.  Then said the king, Thou sayest, This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead:  and thou sayest, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living.  And the king said, Bring me a sword.  And they brought a sword before the king.  And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.  Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king (for her bowels yearned after her son), and she said, To me, my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it.  But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.  Then the king answered and said, Give the child to her which said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it:  for she is the mother of it.  And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the face of the king:  for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to do judgment.”24    1 Kings iii. 16–28.

For if we were at liberty to speak in this scoffing way of the Scriptures in use in the Churches, we should rather compare this story of the two harlots to the play of Philistion than that of the chaste Susanna.  And just as the people would not have been persuaded if Solomon had merely said, “Give this one the living child, for she is the mother of it;” so Daniel’s attack on the elders would not have been sufficient had there not been added the condemnation from their own mouth, when both said that they had seen her lying with the young man under a tree, but did not agree as to what kind of tree it was.  And since you have asserted, as if you knew for certain, that Daniel in this matter judged by inspiration (which may or may not have been the case), I would have you notice that there seem to me to be some analogies in the story of Daniel to the judgment of Solomon, concerning whom the Scripture testifies that the people saw that the wisdom of God was in him to do judgment.25    1 Kings iii. 28.  This might be said also of Daniel, for it was because wisdom was in him to do judgment that the elders were judged in the manner described.

Τά γε μὴν ἄλλα σου ἐπαπορήματα ἐδόκει μοι ἀσεμνότερον εἰρῆσθαι, καὶ οὐκ ἔχεσθαι τῆς πρεπούσης σοι εὐλαβείας: οὐ χεῖρον δὲ θεῖναι τὸ αὐταῖς λέξεσιν ὑπὸ σοῦ γεγραμμένον οὕτως: «Ἔπειτα μετὰ τὸ θαυμασίως πως οὕτως ἀποφθέγξασθαι, καὶ παραδοξότατά πως αὐτοὺς ἀπελέγχει, ὡς οὐδὲ Φιλιστίων ὁ μῖμος: οὐ γὰρ ἐξήρκει ἡ διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐπίπληξις, ἀλλ' ἰδίᾳ διαστήσας ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν, ἐρωτᾷ ποῦ θεάσαιτο αὐτὴν μοιχωμένην. Ὡς δὲ ὁ μὲν ὑπὸ πρῖνον ἔφασκεν, ἀποκρίνεται πρίσειν αὐτὸν τὸν ἄγγελον: τῷ δὲ ὑπὸ σχῖνον εἰρηκότι, σχισθῆναι παραπλησίως ἀπειλεῖ.» Ὥρα γὰρ παραβάλλειν ἄλλο τούτῳ παραπλήσιον εἰρημένον ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ τῶν Βασιλειῶν, ὅπερ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁμολογήσεις ὑγιῶς ἀναγεγράφθαι, τῷ Φιλιστίωνος μίμῳ. Ἔχει δὲ οὕτως ἡ ἀπὸ τῶν Βασιλειῶν λέξις: «Τότε ὤφθησαν δύο γυναῖκες πόρναι τῷ βασιλεῖ, καὶ ἔστησαν ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ. Καὶ εἶπεν ἡ γυνὴ μία: Ἐν ἐμοὶ, κύριέ μου. Ἐγὼ καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὕτη οἰκοῦμεν ἐν οἴκῳ ἑνὶ, καὶ ἐτέκομεν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ. Καὶ ἐγενήθη ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ τεκούσης μου, καὶ ἔτεκε καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὕτη. Καὶ ἡμεῖς κατὰ τὸ αὐτό. Οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲ εἷς ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ ἡμῶν παρὲξ ἀμφοτέρων ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ. Καὶ ἀπέθανεν ὁ υἱὸς τῆς γυναικὸς ταύτης τὴν νύκτα, ὡς ἐπεκοιμήθη ἐπ' αὐτόν. Καὶ ἀνέστη μέσης τῆς νυκτός: καὶ ἔλαβε τὸν υἱόν μου ἐκ τῶν ἀγκαλῶν μου: καὶ ἡ δούλη σου ὕπνουν. Καὶ ἐκοίμισεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ αὐτῆς, καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν τεθνεῶτα ἐκοίμισεν ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ μου. Καὶ ἀνέστην τὸ πρωῒ θηλάσαι τὸν υἱόν μου: κἀκεῖνος ἦν τεθνηκώς. Καὶ ἰδοὺ κατενόησα αὐτὸν τὸ πρωΐ, καὶ ἰδοὺ οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱός μου ὃν ἔτεκον. Καὶ εἶπεν ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἑτέρα: Οὐχί: ἀλλ' ὁ υἱός σου ἐστὶν ὁ νεκρὸς, ὁ υἱὸς δὲ ὁ ἐμὸς ὁ ζῶν. Ἡ δὲ ἄλλη καὶ αὐτὴ ἔλεγεν: Οὐχὶ, ἀλλ' ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ζῶν: ὁ δὲ υἱός σου ὁ τεθνηκώς. Καὶ ἐλάλησαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ βασιλέως, καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεὺς αὐταῖς: Σὺ λέγεις: Οὗτός μου ὁ υἱὸς ὁ ζῶν, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ταύτης ὁ τεθνηκώς. Καὶ σὺ λέγεις: Οὐχὶ, ἀλλ' ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ζῶν: ὁ δὲ υἱός σου ὁ τεθνηκώς. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεύς: Λάβετέ μοι μάχαιραν. Καὶ προσήνεγκαν τὴν μάχαιραν ἐνώπιον τοῦ βασιλέως. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεύς: Διέλετε τὸ παιδίον τὸ ζῶν εἰς δύο, καὶ δότε τὸ ἥμισυ αὐτοῦ ταύτῃ, τὸ ἥμισυ αὐτοῦ ταύτῃ. Καὶ ἀπεκρίθη ἡ γυνὴ ἧς ὁ υἱὸς ἦν ὁ ζῶν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα, ὅτι ἐταράχθη ἡ μήτρα αὐτῆς ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτῆς, καὶ εἶπεν: Ἐν ἐμοὶ, Κύριε: δότε αὐτῇ τὸ παιδίον τὸ ζῶν, καὶ θανάτῳ μὴ θανατώσητε αὐτό. Καὶ αὕτη εἶπε: Μήτε ἐμοὶ, μήτε αὐτῇ ἔστω: διέλετε. Καὶ ἀπεκρίθη ὁ βασιλεὺς, καὶ εἶπε: Δότε τὸ παιδίον τῇ εἰπούσῃ: Δότε αὐτῇ τοῦτο, καὶ θανάτῳ μὴ θανατώσητε αὐτό: αὕτη γὰρ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ. Καὶ ἤκουσε πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ τὸ κρῖμα ὃ ἔκρινεν ὁ βασιλεὺς, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ βασιλέως, ὅτι εἶδον, ὅτι φρόνησις Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ τοῦ ποιεῖν δικαίωμα.» Εἴπερ γὰρ χρὴ περὶ τῶν φερομένων ἐν ταῖς Ἐκκλησίαις ἀποφαίνεσθαι χλευαστικῶς, μᾶλλον τὴν περὶ τῶν δύο ἑταιρῶν ἱστορίαν τῷ Φιλιστίωνος μίμῳ, ἢ τὴν περὶ τῆς σεμνῆς Σωσάννης ὁμοιῶσαι ἐχρῆν. Καὶ ὥσπερ οὐκ ἤρκει πρὸς πειθὼ τοῦ λαοῦ τὸ εἰπεῖν Σολομῶντα: «Δότε τῇδε τὸ ζῶν παιδίον: αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ:» οὕτως οὐκ ἤρκει ἡ πρὸς τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους ἐπίπληξις τοῦ Δανιὴλ, μὴ προσπαραλαμβανομένου τοῦ ἐκ στόματος αὐτῶν ἐλέγχου: εἰπόντων μὲν ὑπό τι δένδρον αὐτὴν ἑωρακέναι κοιμωμένην μετὰ τοῦ νεανίσκου, μὴ μὴν συμφωνησάντων περὶ τοῦ τί δένδρον ἦν. Καὶ ἐπείπερ ὡς καταλαβὼν ἔφασκες ἐξ ἐπιπνοίας τὸν Δανιὴλ κεκρικέναι τὰ περὶ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους, τάχα μὲν οὕτως ἐλέγχοντα, τάχα δὲ ἑτέρως, πρόσχες: καὶ ταῦτα παραπλήσια δοκεῖ μοι εἶναι τὰ κατὰ τὸν Δανιὴλ τῇ κρίσει τοῦ Σολομῶντος: περὶ οὗ μαρτυρεῖ ἡ Γραφὴ, ὅτι εἶδεν ὁ λαὸς, ὅτι φρόνησις Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ τοῦ ποιεῖν δικαίωμα. Τοῦτο ἂν δύναιτο λέγεσθαι καὶ περὶ τοῦ Δανιήλ: ὅτι φρονήσεως οὔσης ἐν αὐτῷ τοῦ ποιεῖν δικαίωμα, ἐκρίθη τὰ ἀναγεγραμμένα περὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων.