C. Delarue, O.S.B., Monitum in Africani ad Origenem et Origenis ad Africanum epistolam

ON THE EPISTLE OF AFRICANUS TO ORIGEN AND ORIGEN'S REPLY TO AFRICANUS CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA: ADMONITION.

1. Scarcely anything is more celebrated among the ancients than these two brief writings. Eusebius, in Book VI of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 31, says: "There is extant an epistle of his (Africanus) written to Origen, raising doubts as though the history concerning Susanna in Daniel were spurious and fabricated; in reply to which Origen writes most fully." "There is extant an epistle of his (Africanus) written to Origen, in which the history of Susanna, which

is read in the book of Daniel, he suspects to be spurious and fabricated. To which letter Origen replies most copiously." Rufinus in his version paraphrases these things after his custom thus: "About the same time there was also Africanus, a man noble in ecclesiastical Scriptures. A letter of his is extant written to Origen, objecting or proposing to him that the history of Susanna, which is written in Daniel, seems fictitious and alien to prophetic Scripture. To whom Origen writing back most magnificently, asserts that no heed at all is to be paid to the figments and frauds of the Jews; but that this alone is to be held as true in the divine Scriptures which the Seventy Translators translated: for that alone is what has been confirmed by apostolic authority." Where you may note in passing that Jerome is not obliquely glanced at, who in his preface to Daniel, speaking in the person of a Jew, had called the history of Susanna a figment or fable. To Eusebius must be added the just-mentioned Jerome, who in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers, on Julius Africanus, says: "There is a letter of his to Origen on the question of Susanna, because he says that this fable is not had in the Hebrew, nor does it agree with Hebrew etymology, from the mastich tree to cleave, and from the holm-oak to saw, against whom Origen writes a learned letter." With these Photius agrees in his Bibliotheca, cod. 34: This man (Africanus) also writes to Origen concerning the narrative about Susanna, that it was not read in the Hebrew copies, and that neither from the holm-oak to saw nor from the mastich tree to cleave is consonant with Hebrew etymology; taking up which points Origen wrote in reply. "He also wrote to Origen concerning the history of Susanna, that it is not read in the books of the Hebrews, and that that play on words, from the holm-oak to saw, and from the mastich tree to cleave, is by no means consonant with Hebrew etymology. Taking up which points Origen refuted them in writing." Suidas, under the word Africanus, says: Against him Origen wrote, making a reply in defence of the book of Susanna, which belongs to Daniel. "Against him Origen wrote, replying to the arguments objected by him against the history of Susanna which is extant in Daniel." The same, under the word Susanna: That against Africanus Sextus Origen wrote, making a reply in defence of the book of Susanna, which belongs to Daniel. "Against Sextus Africanus Origen wrote, and refuted his arguments wherewith he had assailed the book of Susanna." Well indeed, except that he confuses Julius Africanus with Sextus Africanus, as Joseph Scaliger warns us in his Animadversions on Eusebius, at the year 2237. Freculphus in his Chronicle, vol. II, book III, chap. 8: "There is a letter of his (Africanus's) to Adamantius on the question of Susanna, because he says that it is held a fable in the Hebrew (read, is not held in the Hebrew) and does not agree with the Hebrew: against which Adamantius wrote a learned letter." Nicephorus Callistus, book V of the Ecclesiastical History, chap. 21: And this man (Africanus), having composed a letter, sent it to Origen, shaking off the history concerning Susanna in Daniel as a spurious writing of Scripture; writing in reply to which, Origen shows that it is not spurious, but rather genuine Scripture, and working the fullest benefit. "He also sent a letter to Origen, in which he rejects the history of Susanna which is had in Daniel as an adulterated writing. Writing back to whom, Origen shows that it is not illegitimate, but rather genuine Scripture, as bringing very great benefit." Gobelinus Persona in his Cosmodromium, age 6, chap. 10, says: "Gordian reigned six years. At this time lived Africanus the historian, who wrote one letter to Origen on the history of Susanna." Trithemius also lists it among the works of Julius Africanus in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers. "To Origen," he says, "on Susanna, one book." Finally, both of these letters, by so unanimous a testimony of the ancients

vindicated, are moreover found today recorded in several manuscript codices, two of which especially bear a venerable antiquity. For the one, from the Coislinian library, num. 21, was written in the eleventh century of the Church; while the other, from the Royal library, num. 1892, was written in the thirteenth century.

2. It is certain that Origen wrote this letter of his to Africanus at Nicomedia; and since he undertook a journey into Greece twice, the first in the year 228, and the second twelve years later, on one or the other journey he seems to have gone to Nicomedia and to have sent the letter from there. Huet attributes this to the second journey. Certainly in this letter Origen relates to Africanus that with vast labour he had collected the variant readings of the Hebrew text and of the Seventy Translators, having made a collation of both, and for that reason had examined all the various editions. Now if he meant to indicate his Hexapla, to the publishing of which he set his hand after he found the sixth edition, as Epiphanius testifies, in the seventh year of Alexander Severus, that is, the 228th of Christ, he does not seem to have been able in this same year to have put together and published so arduous and so immense a work as the Hexapla. Better, therefore, is the letter to Africanus referred to the second journey into Greece. Tillemont does not think that the Hexapla are indicated in this letter, but the Tetrapla, which he opines could have been prepared before the year 228. However, in this letter Origen speaks of the edition of the Seventy with obeli and asterisks, num. 4: And there are other things also, he says, to be found in Genesis, to which we have affixed signs, called obeli among the Greeks, that such a thing might be known to us; as again asterisks, to those things which lie in the Hebrew, but are not found among us. "There are other things also to be found in Genesis, to which we have affixed signs, called spits by the Greeks, that passages of this kind may become known to us: as again asterisks, to those things which are extant indeed in the Hebrew, but are not found among us." Now that Origen did not emend the edition of the Seventy in the Tetrapla, but applied a healing hand to them afterwards by the use of obeli and asterisks, namely when he was preparing the Hexapla and Octapla, the Reverend Father Dom Bernard de Montfaucon invincibly proves in his Preliminaries to the Hexapla, page 10 and page 38. Not only, therefore, after the edition of the Tetrapla, but also after that of the Hexapla, and to the second journey of Origen into Greece, is the letter to Africanus referred. As for the objection which Tillemont raises against himself from the letter of Africanus, where he calls Origen his son, it does not seem to be of so great moment; for it is likely that Origen was called son for this reason, because he was far younger in age; which reason was doubtless equal both on his first and on his second journey. Nor are examples lacking whereby this may be confirmed: for Eusebius of Vercelli was wont to address Dionysius, Bishop of Milan, already mature in age and conspicuous in dignity, yet younger than himself, as son.

3. Now must be refuted Johann Rudolf Wetstein, who in his notes on this letter of Origen, which he published in Greek in the year 1674, thinks that his arguments do not tend to this, that the section of Susanna should be received as a canonical, divinely inspired, and true and genuine part of the book of Daniel, but only that it should be held as a true, useful history, and therefore to be read among pious and sacred books. How false that is, hear in a few words. 1st, Africanus had written that when he heard Origen in his dialogue with Agnomon recounting the history of Susanna, he had at first thought the matter to be so, but afterwards, having weighed the matter more maturely, wondered how it had escaped so great a man that this part of the book of Daniel is spurious. I wonder, he says, how it escaped you that this part of the book is counterfeit. Origen therefore in the dialogue had without any sign of doubt praised this history as a true and genuine part of the book of Daniel. 2nd, Nor after reading the letter of Africanus did he change his opinion. That is clear from his individual replies to the objections of Africanus. Africanus objects first

that this history was not in the book of Daniel in Hebrew, but was afterwards added in Greek: from all these things, he says, the section seems to me to be an addition. What does Origen reply? It is nothing absurd, he says in num. 9, that the history took place and that the cruelty accompanied with great licentiousness was dared by the elders of that time against Susanna and was written down by the providence of the Spirit, but was secretly removed, as the Spirit would say, by the rulers of Sodom: "Nothing prevents this history from having happened, and the things which the elders who then were perpetrated at once lustfully and cruelly against Susanna from having been written down indeed by the providence of the Spirit, but afterwards secretly taken away by the rulers of Sodom (as the same Spirit would say)." And a little before: It is therefore no wonder if, although the history concerning Susanna plotted against by licentious elders was true, those who were not far from the purpose of those elders stole it away, and subtracted it from the Scriptures. "It is therefore no wonder if the history of Susanna also, against whom licentious elders laid snares, though true, those who were not far from their purpose stole away, and subtracted from the Scriptures." 3rd, Africanus objects that the style of this history differs from the true style and manner of narration of Daniel. Origen replies in num. 16 that this does not seem so to him: which did not at all appear so to me. 4th, Africanus says that Daniel does not seem elsewhere to have prophesied from inspiration, but after visions. Origen replies in num. 10 that he had not paid sufficient attention to what Paul says in Heb. 1:1, that at sundry times and in divers manners God spoke of old to the fathers in the prophets; and that therefore it ought not to seem wonderful if what happened to many others, that they spoke now after visions, now seized by inspiration, happened also to Daniel. 5th, Africanus objects that the circumstances of this history do not sufficiently savour of the gravity of sacred Scripture. Origen replies in num. 11 that he wonders how a man endowed with so great wisdom and so great piety and religion dares to arraign the modes of speech of Scripture, which if it were lawful to turn into ridicule, one might more tolerably mock the history of the two women who wrangle over a child before Solomon (1 Kgs. 3:16 ff.). 6th, Africanus says that the play on the words holm-oak and to saw, and mastich tree and to cleave, betrays a Greek author. Origen replies that in the Hebrew text indeed, since it has perished, he cannot show anything similar; yet it is not to be doubted that there could have been similar plays on words in it,

of such a kind as are found in Hebrew in many other places of Scripture. 7th, Africanus says that the passage of Exodus (Exod. 23:7) which is cited in this history is a proof that it does not have Daniel for its author, since nowhere in the Scriptures is a prophet found to have used the words of another prophet. Origen replies in no. 15 that he wonders how this could have been objected by so learned a man, since it is refuted by many contrary examples which are known even to simpler and less learned persons.

This is the synopsis of the objections of Africanus and the replies of Origen, from which, unless I am mistaken, it is clear that the history of Susanna is everywhere defended by Origen as a true and genuine part of the book of Daniel, and therefore as canonical, divinely inspired Scripture; for neither is there any room for doubting that he held the remaining parts of the book of Daniel to be canonical. Add to this that Origen, in his first homily on Leviticus, reckons the history of Susanna among the canonical books in these express words: « But it is time for us to use against wicked presbyters the words of holy Susanna, which they indeed rejecting, have cut off the history of Susanna from the catalogue of the divine volumes; whereas we both receive it and seasonably bring it forward against them. » The same author in tractate 31 on Matthew says: « We have used in this place the example of Daniel, not being ignorant that it is not found in the Hebrew; but since it is held in the Churches, it belongs to another time to inquire about such things. » Lest anyone, however, should plead with Wetstein that in the former passage taken from the first homily on Leviticus something was perhaps inserted by Rufinus which was not in the Greek text, behold another passage of Origen written in Greek, and on the testimony of Eusebius in book 6 of the Preparation for the Gospel and chapter 22 of the Philocalia drawn from his commentaries on Genesis: And if one must also establish this from the Scriptures, the prophecies are full of such examples; and according to Susanna too, since God knows all things before their coming into being, when she speaks thus: O eternal God, Who art the knower of hidden things, Who knowest all things before their coming into being, Thou knowest that these men have borne false witness against me. « Yet if the testimonies of the sacred letters also are needed for that matter, the utterances of the prophets are full of examples of that kind, and Susanna herself too asserted the knowledge of all things as belonging to Him in these words: « O eternal God, Who art the knower of hidden things; Who knowest all things before they come to pass; Thou knowest that they have borne false witness against me. »