A Letter to Origen from Africanus

About the History of Susanna.

Greeting, my lord and son, most worthy Origen, from Africanus.1    [See Routh’s Reliquiæ, vol. ii. p. 115; also Euseb., i. 7, and Socrates, ii. 35.  He ranks with the great pupils of the Alexandrian school, with which, however, he seems to have had only a slight personal relation.  Concerning this Epistle to Origen, and the answer of the latter, consult Routh’s very full annotations (ut supra, pp. 312–328).  Concerning Gregory Thaumaturgus, the greatest of Origen’s pupils, we shall know more when we come to vol. vi. of this series.  He died circa 270.]  In your sacred discussion with Agnomon you referred to that prophecy of Daniel which is related of his youth.  This at that time, as was meet, I accepted as genuine.  Now, however, I cannot understand how it escaped you that this part of the book is spurious.  For, in sooth, this section, although apart from this it is elegantly written, is plainly a more modern forgery.  There are many proofs of this.  When Susanna is condemned to die, the prophet is seized by the Spirit, and cries out that the sentence is unjust.  Now, in the first place, it is always in some other way that Daniel prophesies—by visions, and dreams, and an angel appearing to him, never by prophetic inspiration.  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 menaced the other who said, “Under a mastich-tree” (schinos), with being rent asunder (schisthenai).  Now, in Greek, it happens that “holm-tree” and “saw asunder,” and “rend” and “mastich-tree” sound alike; but in Hebrew they are quite distinct.  But all the books of the Old Testament have been translated from Hebrew into Greek.

2.  Moreover, how is it that they who were captives among the Chaldæans, lost and won at play,2    Nolte would change ἠστραγαλωμένοι (or ἀστραγαλώμενοι, as Wetsten. has it), which is a ἅπαξ εἰρημένον, into στραγγαλώμενοι or ἐστραγγαλωμένοι, “strangled.”  He compares Tob. ii. 3. thrown out unburied on the streets, as was prophesied of the former captivity, their sons torn from them to be eunuchs, and their daughters to be concubines, as had been prophesied; how is it that such could pass sentence of death, and that on the wife of their king Joakim, whom the king of the Babylonians had made partner of his throne?  Then if it was not this Joakim, but some other from the common people, whence had a captive such a mansion and spacious garden?  But a more fatal objection is, that this section, along with the other two at the end of it, is not contained in the Daniel received among the Jews.  And add that, among all the many prophets who had been before, there is no one who has quoted from another word for word.  For they had no need to go a-begging for words, since their own were true; but this one, in rebuking one of those men, quotes the words of the Lord:  “The innocent and righteous shalt thou not slay.”  From all this I infer that this section is a later addition.  Moreover, the style is different.  I have struck the blow; do you give the echo; answer, and instruct me.  Salute all my masters.  The learned all salute thee.  With all my heart I pray for your and your circle’s health.

Ἀφρικανοῦ περὶ τῆς κατὰ Σουσάνναν ἱστορίας.

Χαῖρε κύριέ μου καὶ υἱὲ καὶ πάντα τιμιώτατε Ὠρίγενες παρὰ Ἀφρικανοῦ.

Ὅτε τὸν ἱερὸν ἐποιοῦ πρὸς τὸν ἀγνώμονα. διάλογον, ἐμνήσθης τῆς ἐν νεότητι προφητείας τοῦ Δανιήλ: καὶ ὡς ἔπρεπεν, ἠσπασάμην τότε. θαυμάζω δὲ πῶς ἔλαθέ σε τὸ μέρος τοῦτο τοῦ βιβλίου κίβδηλον ὄν: ἡ γάρ τοι περικοπὴ αὕτη χάριεν μὲν ἄλλως σύγγραμμα, ἀλλὰ σύγγραμμα νεωτερικὸν καὶ πεπλασμένον δείκνυταί τε καὶ κατὰ πολλοὺς ἀπελέγχεται τρόπους.

Τῆς γὰρ Σουσάννης ἀποθανεῖν κεκελευσμένης πνεύματι ληφθεὶς ὁ προφήτης ἐξεβόησεν, ὡς ἀδίκως ἡ ἀπόφασις ἔχοι. πρῶτον ὅτι Δανιὴλ ἄλλῳ τρόπῳ προφητεύει ὁράμασι καὶ ὀνείροις διὰ παντὸς καιροῦ καὶ ἀγγέλου ἐπιφανείας τυγχάνει, ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐπιπνοίᾳ προφητικῇ. ἔπειτα μετὰ τὸ θαυμασίως πως οὕτως ἀποφθέγξασθαι καὶ παραδοξότατά πως αὐτοὺς ἀπελέγχει, ὡς οὐδὲ ὁ Φιλιστίωνος μῖμος. οὐ γὰρ ἐξήρκει ἡ διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ἐπίπληξις, ἀλλ' ἰδίᾳ διαστήσας ἑκάτερον ἐρωτᾷ, ποῦ αὐτὴν ἐθεάσατο μοιχωμένην. ὡς δὲ ὁ μὲν ὑπὸ πρῖνον ἔφασκεν, ἀποκρίνεται πρίσειν αὐτὸν τὸν ἄγγελον, τῷ δὲ ὑπὸ σχῖνον εἰρηκότι σχισθῆναι παραπλησίως ἀπειλεῖ. ἐν μὲν οὖν Ἑλληνικαῖς φωναῖς τὰ τοιαῦτα ὁμοφωνεῖν συμβαίνει, παρὰ τὴν πρῖνον τὸ πρῖσαι καὶ σχίσαι παρὰ τὴν σχῖνον, ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἑβραΐδι τῷ παντὶ διέστηκεν. ἐξ Ἑβραίων δὲ τοῖς Ἕλλησι μετεβλήθη πάνθ' ὅσα τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης φέρεται.

Παρὰ δὲ Ἰουδαίοις αἰχμάλωτοι ὄντες ἐν τῇ Βαβυλωνίᾳ στραγγαλώμενοι καὶ ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις ἄταφοι ῥιπτούμενοι, ὡς ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ αἰχμαλωσίᾳ τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἱστορεῖται, τῶν τε παίδων αὐτοῖς ἀποσπωμένων εἰς εὐνουχισμὸν καὶ τῶν θυγατέρων εἰς παλλακάς, ὡς προπεφήτευτο, οὐ δὴ καὶ περὶ θανάτου ἔκρινον, καὶ ταῦτα τῇ βασιλέως αὐτῶν γενομένου γυναικὶ Ἰωακείμ, ὃν σύνθρονον πεποίητο ὁ Βαβυλωνίων βασιλεύς: εἰ δὲ οὐχ οὗτος, ἀλλ' ἄλλος τις τοῦ λαοῦ Ἰωακείμ, πόθεν τοιαύτη κατάλυσις αἰχμαλώτῳ περιῆν καὶ παράδεισος ἀμφιλαφὴς ἦν; πρὸ δὲ τούτων ἁπάντων ἥδε ἡ περικοπὴ σὺν ἄλλαις δύο ταῖς ἐπὶ τῷ τέλει τῷ παρὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων εἰλημμένῳ Δανιὴλ οὐκ ἐμφέρεται. ἐπὶ δὲ πᾶσι τοσούτων προωδοιπορηκότων προφητῶν ἑξῆς οὐδεὶς ἑτέρου κέχρηται ῥητῷ ἢ νοήματι: οὐ γὰρ ἐπτώχευσεν ὁ λόγος αὐτῶν ἀληθὴς ὤν: οὑτοσὶ δὲ ἐκείνων θατέρῳ ἐπαπειλῶν ὑπομιμνήσκει λέγοντος τοῦ κυρίου: ἀθῷον καὶ δίκαιον οὐκ ἀποκτενεῖς.

Ἐξ ἁπάντων τούτων ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ προσκεῖσθαι ἡ περικοπή. ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς φράσεως ὁ χαρακτὴρ διαλλάσσει.

Ἔκρουσα: σὺ δέ μοι καὶ ἤχησον καὶ ἀντιγράφων παίδευε.

Τοὺς κυρίους μου πάντας προσαγόρευε, σὲ οἱ ἐπιστάμενοι πάντες προσαγορεύουσιν. ἐῤῥῶσθαί σε ἅμα τῇ συνοδίᾳ [καὶ] κατὰ νοῦν θεῷ εὔχομαι.