(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all mistakes found.)
Transliteration of Greek words: All phonetical except: w = omega; h serves
three puposes: 1. = Eta; 2. = rough breathing, when appearing intially
before a vowel; 3. = in the aspirated letters theta = th, phi = ph, chi =
ch. Accents are given immediately after their corresponding vowels: acute =
' , grave = `, circumflex = ^. The character ' doubles as an apostrophe,
when necessary.
A LETTER TO ORIGEN FROM AFRICANUS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA.
GREETING, my lord and son, most worthy Origen, from Africanus.[1] 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
Chaldaeans, 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? 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 shall
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.
A LETTER FROM ORIGEN TO AFRICANUS.
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;[1] 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 Loan 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! 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;[2] 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?[3]
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."[4] 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;[5] 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.
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."[1] 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,"[2] 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; [3] 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.[4]
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.[5] 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, 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"[6] 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.[7] 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."[1]
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."[2] 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."[3] 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."[4] 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,[5] 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."[6] 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."[1]
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."[2] 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.[3] 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. 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."[4]
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.[1] 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;"[2] and that "is"
means "man," as we see from "Hesre ais," which is, "Blessed is the man."[3]
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."[4] 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."[5]
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."[6]
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."[1]
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."[2]
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,"[3] is in the beginning almost identical with Ps.
cv., down to "and do my prophets no harm;" and after that it is the same as
Ps. xcvi., 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.[4] And the rules about the
passover, and the rules for the priests, are not only in Moses, but also at
the end of Ezekiel.[5] 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.
Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland beginning in
1867. (ANF 4, Roberts and Donaldson). The digital version is by The
Electronic Bible Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
Provided courtesy of:
EWTN On-Line Services
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
WWW:
http://www.ewtn.com.
Email address:
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
