This
Letter is extremely enlightening as to the state of the word of God in Origen’s
day. And the need for all teachers and preachers to go back to the original
texts to see if these things be so. – Origen cites dozens
of cases of additions that have been inserted in the Septuagint
and other translations that are not contained in the Hebrew.
Origen to Africanus (On the state of the Canon
of Scripture, and thousands of corruptions in the Scripture
books that were in use in his day.)
Origen to Africanus,
a beloved brother in God the Father, through Jesus Christ,
His holy Child, greeting. Your letter, from which I learn
what you think of the Susanna in the Book of Daniel, which
is used in the Churches, although apparently somewhat short,
presents in its few words many problems, each of which demands
no common treatment, but such as oversteps the character of
a letter, and reaches the limits of a discourse.1
And I, when I consider, as best I can, the measure of my intellect,
that I may know myself, am aware that I am wanting in the
accuracy necessary to reply to your letter; and that the more,
that the few days I have spent in Nicomedia have been far
from sufficient to send you an answer to all your demands
and queries even after the fashion of the present epistle.
Wherefore pardon my little ability, and the little time I
had, and read this letter with all indulgence, supplying anything
I may omit.
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 young man in the affair of Susanna,
I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book
was spurious. You say that you praise
this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it
as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you
add that the forger has had recourse to something which not
even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns
between prinos
and prisein, schinos and schisis,
which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way,
but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I
have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not
only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church
of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is
not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention
at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the
Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel;
but of thousands of other
passages also which I found
in many places when with my little strength I was collating
the Hebrew copies with ours. For in Daniel itself I found
the word "bound" followed in our versions by very many verses
which are not in the Hebrew at all, beginning (according to one of the copies
which circulate in the Churches) thus: "Ananias, and
Azarias, and Misael prayed and sang unto God," down to
"O, all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye the God of
gods. Praise Him, and say that His mercy endureth for ever
and ever. And it came to pass, when the king heard them singing,
and saw them that they were alive." Or, as in another
copy, from "And they walked in the midst of the fire,
praising God and blessing the Lord," down to "O,
all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye the God of gods. Praise
Him, and say that His mercy endureth to all generations."2
But in the Hebrew copies the words,
"And these three men, Sedrach, Misach, and Abednego fell
down bound into the midst of the fire," are immediately
followed by the verse, "Nabouchodonosor the king was
astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto
his counsellors." For so Aquila, following
the Hebrew reading, gives it, who has obtained the credit
among the Jews of having interpreted the Scriptures with no
ordinary care, and whose version is most commonly used by
those who do not know Hebrew, as the one which has been most
successful. Of the copies in my possession whose readings
I gave, one follows the Seventy, and the other Theodotion;
and just as the History of Susanna which you call a forgery
is found in both, together with the passages at the end of
Daniel, so they give also these passages, amounting, to make
a rough guess, to more than two hundred verses.
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, since it is impossible to give them
all. Of the Book of Esther neither the prayer of
Mardochaios nor that of Esther, both fitted to edify the reader,
is found in the Hebrew. Neither are the letters;3
nor the one written to Amman about the rooting up of the Jewish
nation, nor that of Mardochaios in the name of Artaxerxes
delivering the nation from death. Then in Job, the words from
"It is written, that he shall rise again with those whom
the Lord raises," to the end, are not in the Hebrew,
and so not in Aquila's edition; while they are found in the
Septuagint and in Theodotion's version, agreeing with each
other at least in sense. And many other places I found in
Job where our copies have more than the Hebrew ones, sometimes
a little more, and sometimes a great deal more: a little more,
as when to the words, "Rising up in the morning, he offered
burnt-offerings for them according to their number,"
they add, "one heifer for the sin of their soul; "and
to the words, "The angels of God came to present themselves
before God, and the devil came with them," "from
going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down
in it." Again, after "The Lord gave, the Lord has
taken away," the Hebrew has not, "It was so, as
seemed good to the Lord." Then our copies are very much
fuller than the Hebrew, when Job's wife speaks to him, from
"How long wilt thou hold out? And he said, Lo, I wait
yet a little while, looking for the hope of my salvation,"
down to "that I may cease from my troubles, and my sorrows
which compass me." For they have only these words of
the woman, "But say a word against God, and die."
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 sometimes, however, even fourteen, and
nineteen, and sixteen. But why should I enumerate all the
instances I collected with so much labour, to prove that the
difference between our copies and those of the Jews did not
escape me? In Jeremiah I noticed many instances, and indeed
in that book I found much transposition and variation in the
readings of the prophecies. Again, in Genesis, the words,
"God saw that it was good," when the firmament was
made, are not found in the Hebrew, and there is no small dispute
among them about this; and other instances are to be found
in Genesis, which I marked, for the sake of distinction, with
the sign the Greeks call an obelisk, as on the other hand
I marked with an asterisk those passages in our copies which
are not found in the Hebrew. What needs there to speak of
Exodus, where there is such diversity in what is said about
the tabernacle and its court, and the ark, and the garments
of the high priest and the priests, that sometimes the meaning
even does not seem to be akin? And, forsooth, when we notice
such things, we are forthwith to
reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and
enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current
among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give
us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery!
(Historically this never happened
-- much of the stuff Origen and Africanus are speaking
of is still in our copies of the Bible.) Are we
to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures
has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ,
had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ
died;4
whom, although His Son, God who is love spared not, but gave
Him up for us all, that with Him He might freely give us all
things?5
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 have set."6
Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating
the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing
their various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say
it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my
ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions
and various readings;7
while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of
the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery
to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion
to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their
desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation
against those who shine forth in our community. And I make
it my endeavour not to be ignorant of their various readings,
lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them
what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some
use of what is found there, even although it should not be
in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our
discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully
laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true
reading as they have them. So far as to the History of Susanna
not being found in the Hebrew.
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 receiving the history: I mean the play of words between
prinos and
prisis, schinos and schisis.
You say that you can see how this can be in Greek, but that
in Hebrew the words are altogether distinct. On this point,
however, I am still in doubt; because, when I was considering
this passage (for I myself saw this difficulty), I consulted
not a few Jews about it, asking them the Hebrew words for
prinos and prisein, and how they would translate schinos the tree, and how schisis. And they said that they did
not know these Greek words prinos
and schinos,
and asked me to show them the trees, that they might see what
they called them. And I at once (for the truth's dear sake)
put before them pieces of the different trees. One of them
then said, that he could not with any certainty give the Hebrew
name of anything not mentioned in Scripture, since, if
one was at a loss, he was prone to use the Syriac word instead
of the Hebrew one; and he went on to say, that some words
the very wisest could not translate. "If, then,"
said he, "you can adduce a passage in any Scripture where
the schinos is mentioned, or the prinos, you will find there the words
you seek, together with the words which have the same sound;
but if it is nowhere mentioned, we also do not know it."
This, then, being what the Hebrews said to whom I had recourse,
and who were acquainted with the history, I am cautious of
affirming whether or not there is any correspondence to this
play of words in the Hebrew. Your reason for affirming that
there is not, you yourself probably know.
(Notice that Origin uses as his final authority on Hebrew Jewish
Scholars – The Jews were still important to the Church in
that day – there was no anti-Semitism as an official or unofficial
doctrine It was in the days of Constantine at the bequest
of the Pope that the Jews be put to the sword.)
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 succeed his father, with whom I had intercourse on many
subjects, the names of these elders, just as if he did not
reject the History of Susanna, as they occur in Jeremias
as follows: "The Lord make thee like Zedekias and Achiab,
whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire, for the iniquity
they did in Israel." Jeremiah 29:22-23. How,
then, could the one be sawn asunder by an angel, and the other
rent in pieces? The answer is, that these things were prophesied
not of this world, but of the judgment of God, after the departure
from this world. For as the lord of that wicked servant
who says, "My lord delayeth his coming," and so
gives himself up to drunkenness, eating and drinking with
drunkards, and smiting his fellow-servants, shall at his coming
"cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the
unbelievers,"9
even so the angels appointed to punish will accomplish these
things (just as they will cut asunder the wicked steward of
that passage) on these men, who were called indeed elders,
but who administered their stewardship wickedly. One will
saw asunder him who was waxen old in wicked days, who had
pronounced false judgment, condemning the innocent, and letting
the guilty go free; Sussan 52-53 and another will rend in
pieces him of the seed of Chanaan, and not of Judah, whom
beauty had deceived, and whose heart lust had perverted. Sussana
56
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 hoping by the coming of Christ to be freed from the yoke
of their enemies, that they could explain clearly the things
concerning Christ,... and that they so deceived the wives
of their countrymen.12
Wherefore it is that the prophet Daniel calls the one "waxen
old in wicked days," and says to the other, "Thus
have ye dealt with the children of Israel; but the daughters
of Juda would not abide your wickedness."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 stories? The answer is, that they hid
from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which
contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges,
as they could, (I can see this
in the writings of Josephus – he flat lies as to Israel’s
state before God.) some of which have been preserved
in uncanonical writings (Apocrypha). As an example, take
the story told about Esaias; and guaranteed by the Epistle
to the Hebrews, which is found in none of their public books.
For the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in speaking
of the prophets, and what they suffered, says, "They
were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with
the sword" Hebrew 11:37 To whom, I ask, does the
"sawn asunder" refer (for by an old idiom, not peculiar
to Hebrew, but found also in Greek, this is said in the plural,
although it refers to but one person)? Now we know very
well that tradition says that Esaias the prophet was sawn
asunder; and this is found in some apocryphal work, which
probably the Jews have purposely tampered with. introducing
some phrases manifestly incorrect, that discredit might be
thrown on the whole.
However, some one
hard pressed by this argument may have recourse to the opinion
of those who reject this Epistle as not being Paul's; against
whom I must at some other time use other arguments to prove
that it is Paul's.14
At present I shall adduce from the Gospel what Jesus Christ
testifies concerning the prophets, together with a story which
He refers to, but which is not found in the Old Testament,
since in it also there is a scandal against unjust judges
in Israel. The words of our Saviour run thus: "Woe unto
you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites because ye build the
tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would
not have been partaken with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore be ye witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the
children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then
the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of
vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Gehenna? Wherefore,
behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes;
and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them
shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from
city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood
shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto
the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between
the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these
things shall come upon this generation." And what follows
is of the same tenor: "O Jerusalem; Jerusalem, thou that
killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto
thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together,
even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and
ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."15
Let us see now
if in these cases we are not forced to the conclusion, that
while the Saviour gives a true account of them, none of the
Scriptures which could prove what He tells are to be found.
For they who build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the
sepulchres of the righteous, condemning the crimes their fathers
committed against the righteous and the prophets, say, "If
we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have
been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets."16
In the blood of what prophets, can any one tell me? For
where do we find anything like this written of Esaias, or
Jeremias, or any of the twelve, or Daniel? Then about
Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was slain between the
temple and the altar, we learn from Jesus only, not knowing
it otherwise from any Scripture. Wherefore I think no other
supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation
of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people
every passage which might bring them into discredit among
the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history
of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna
is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures
by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of
these elders.
In the Acts of the
Apostles also, Stephen, in his other testimony, says, "Which
of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they
have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just
One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers."17
That Stephen speaks the truth, every one will admit who receives
the Acts of the Apostles; but it is impossible to show from
the extant books of the Old Testament how with any justice
he throws the blame of having persecuted and slain the prophets
on the fathers of those who believed not in Christ. And Paul,
in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, testifies this
concerning the Jews: "For ye, brethren, became followers
of the Churches of Cod which in Judea are in Christ Jesus:
for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen,
even as they have of the Jews; who both killed the Lord
Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and
they please not God, and are contrary to all men."18
What I have said is, I think, sufficient to prove that it
would be nothing wonderful if this history were true, and
the licentious and cruel attack was actually made on Susanna
by those who were at that time elders, and written down by
the wisdom of the Spirit, but removed by these rulers of Sodom,19
as the Spirit would call them.
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; while in that writing of his which is universally
received he is represented as prophesying in quite another
manner, by visions and dreams, and an angel appearing to him,
but never by prophetic inspiration. You seem to me
to pay too little heed to the words, "At sundry times, and in divers manners, God spake in time
past unto the fathers by the prophets."20 This is true not only in the general, but
also of individuals. For if you notice, you will find that
the same saints have been favoured with divine dreams and
angelic appearances and (direct) inspirations. For
the present it will suffice to instance what is testified
concerning Jacob. Of dreams from God he speaks thus: "And
it came to pass, at the time that the cattle conceived, that
I saw them before my eyes in a dream, and, behold, the rams
and he-goats which leaped upon the sheep and the goats, white-spotted,
and speckled, and grisled. And the angel of God spake unto
me in a dream, saying, Jacob. And I said, What is it? And
he said, Lift up thine eyes and see, the goats and rams leaping
on the goats and sheep, white-spotted, and speckled, and grisled:
for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee. I am God,
who appeared unto thee in the place of God, where thou anointedst
to Me there a pillar, and vowedst a vow there to Me: now arise,
get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy
kindred." Gen. xxxi. 10-13.
And as to an appearance
(which is better than a dream), he speaks as follows about
himself: "And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled
a man with him until the breaking of the day. And he saw that
he prevailed not against him, and he touched the breadth of
his thigh; and the breadth of Jacob's thigh grew stiff while
he was wrestling with him. And he said to him, Let me go,
for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go,
except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name?
And he said, Jacob. And he said to him, Thy name shall be
called no more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: for thou
hast prevailed with God, and art powerful with men. And Jacob
asked him, and said, Tell me thy name. And he said, Wherefore
is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him
there. And Jacob called the name of the place Vision of God:
for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
And the sun rose, when the vision of God passed by."22
And that he also prophesied by inspiration, is evident from
this passage: "And Jacob called unto his sons, and said,
Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you what shall
befall you in the last days. Gather yourselves together, and
hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father.
Reuben, my first-born, my might, and the beginning of my children,
hard to be born, hard and stubborn. Thou weft wanton, boil
not over like water; because thou wentest up to thy father's
bed; then defiledst thou the couch to which thou wentetest
up.23
And so with the rest: it was by inspiration that the prophetic
blessings were pronounced. We need not wonder, then, that
Daniel sometimes prophesied by inspiration, as when he rebuked
the elders sometimes, as you say, by dreams and visions, and
at other times by an angel appearing unto him.
11. Your other
objections are stated, as it appears to me, somewhat irreverently,
and without the becoming spirit of piety. (Rebukes Africanus)
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 under (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
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
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.
12. I had nearly
forgotten an additional remark I have to make about the prino-prisein
and schino-schiesein
difficulty; that is, that in our Scriptures there are many
etymological fancies, so to call them, which in the Hebrew
are perfectly suitable, but not in the Greek. It need not
surprise us, then, if the translators of the History of Susanna
contrived it so that they found out some Greek words, derived
from the same root, which either corresponded exactly to the
Hebrew form (though this I hardly think possible), or presented
some analogy to it. Here is an instance of this in our Scripture.
When the woman was made by God from the rib of the man, Adam
says, "She shall be called woman, because she was taken
out of her husband." Now the Jews say that the woman
was called "Essa," and that "taken"
is a translation of this word as is evident from "chos isouoth essa," which means,
"I have taken the cup of salvation;
"26 and that "is" means
"man," as we see from "Hesre
ais," which is, "Blessed is the man."27
According to the Jews, then, "is" is "man,"
and "essa, " "woman," because
she was taken out of her husband (is). It need not
then surprise us if some interpreters of the Hebrew "Susanna,"
which had been concealed among them at a very remote date,
and had been preserved only by the more learned and honest,
should have either given the Hebrew word for word, or hit
upon some analogy to the Hebrew forms, that the Greeks might
be able to follow them. For in many other passages we can,
I find traces of this kind of contrivance on the part of the
translators, which I noticed when I was collating the various
editions.
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 at play, 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?
Them, if it was not this Joakim, but some other from the common
people, whence had a captive such a mansion and spacious garden?
"
Where you get your
"lost and won at play, and thrown out unburied on the
streets," I know not, unless it is from Tobias; and Tobias
(as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use.
They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned
from the Jews themselves." However, since the Churches
use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some
of the captives were rich and well to do. Tobias himself says,
"Because I remembered God with all my heart; and the
Most High gave me grace and beauty in the eyes of Nemessarus,
and I was his purveyor; and I went into Media, and left in
trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias, at Ragi, a city
of Media, ten talents of silver."28
And he adds, as if he were a rich man, "In the days of
Nemessarus I gave many alms to my brethren. I gave my bread
to the hungry, and my clothes to the naked: and if I saw any
of my nation dead, and cast outside the walls of Nineve, I
buried him; and if king Senachereim had slain any when he
came fleeing from Judea, I buried them privily (for in his
wrath he killed many)." Think whether this great catalogue
of Tobias's good deeds does not betoken great wealth and much
property, especially when he adds, "Understanding that
I was sought for to be put to death, I withdrew myself for
fear, and all my goods were forcibly taken away."29
And another captive,
Dachiacharus, the son of Ananiel, the brother of Tobias, was
set over all the exchequer of the kingdom of king Acherdon;
and we read, "Now Achiacharus was cup-bearer and keeper
of the signet, and steward and overseer of the accounts."30
Mardochaios, too,
frequented the court of the king, and had such boldness before
him, that he was inscribed among the benefactors of Artaxerxes.
Again we read in
Esdras, that Neemias, a cup-bearer and eunuch of the king,
of Hebrew race, made a request about the rebuilding of the
temple, and obtained it; so that it was granted to him, with
many more, to return and build the temple again. Why then
should we wonder that one Joakim had garden, and house, and
property, whether these were very expensive or only moderate,
for this is not clearly told us in the writing?
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 king, because of the name Joakim. The answer
is, that it is no uncommon thing, when great nations become
subject, that the king should allow the captives to use their
own laws and courts of justice. Now, for instance, that the
Romans rule, and the Jews pay the half-shekel to them, how
great power by the concession of Caesar the ethnarch has;
so that we, who have had experience of it, know that he differs
in little from a true king! Private trials are held according
to the law, and some are condemned to death. And though there
is not full licence for this, still it is not done without
the knowledge of the ruler, as we learned and were convinced
of when we spent much time in the country of that people.
And yet the Romans only take account of two tribes, while
at that time besides Judah there were the ten tribes of Israel.
Probably the Assyrians contented themselves with holding them
in subjection, and conceded to them their own judicial processes.
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 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 these men, quotes the
words of the Lord, `The innocent and righteous shall thou
not slay.'" I cannot understand how, with all your exercise
in investigating and meditating on the Scriptures, you have
not noticed that the prophets continually quote each other
almost word for word. For who of all believers does not know
the words in Esaias? "And in the last days the mountain
of the Lord shall be manifest, and the house of the Lord on
the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the
hills; and all nations shall come unto it. And many people
shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain
of the Lord, unto the house of the God of Jacob; and He will
teach us His way, and we will walk in it: for out of Zion
shall go forth a law, and a word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many
people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift
up sword against nation; neither shall they learn war any
more."31
But in Micah we
find a parallel passage, which is almost word for word: "And
in the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be manifest,
established on the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted
above the hills; and people shall hasten unto it. And many
nations shall come, and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain
of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and they will
teach us His way, and we will walk in His paths: for a law
shall go forth from Zion, and a word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
And He shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations;
and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their
spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up a sword
against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."32
Again, in First
Chronicles, the psalm which is put in the hands of Asaph and
his brethren to praise the Lord, beginning, "Give thanks
unto the Lord, call upon His name,"33
is in the beginning almost identical with Psalms 105., down
to "and do my prophets no harm; "and after that
it is the same as Psalms 96., from the beginning of that psalm,
which is something like this, "Praise the Lord all the
earth," down to "For He cometh to judge the earth."
(It would have taken up too much time to quote more fully;
so I have given these short references, which are sufficient
for the matter before us.) And you will find the law about
not bearing a burden on the Sabbath-day in Jeremias, as well
as in Moses.34
And the rules about the passover, and the rules for the priests,
are not only in Moses, but also at the end of Ezekiel.35
I would have quoted these, and many more, had I not found
that from the shortness of my stay in Nicomedia my time for
writing you was already too much restricted.
Your last objection
is, that the style is different. This I cannot see.
This, then, is my
defence. I might, especially after all these accusations,
speak in praise of this history of Susanna, dwelling on it
word by word, and expounding the exquisite nature of the thoughts.
Such an encomium, perhaps, some of the learned and able students
of divine things may at some other time compose. This, however,
is my answer to your strokes, as you call them. Would that
I could instruct you! But I do not now arrogate that to myself.
My lord and dear brother Ambrosius, who has written this at
my dictation, and has, in looking over it, corrected as he
pleased, salutes you. His faithful spouse, Marcella, and her
children, also salute you. Also Anicetus. Do you salute our
dear father Apollinarius, and all our friends.