A Letter from Origen to Africanus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ ἃ προσφέρεις τῷ λόγῳ ἐγκλήματα. Καὶ πρῶτόν γε ἀρξώμεθα ἀπὸ τοῦ δυνηθέντος ἂν δυσωπῆσαι πρὸς τὸ μὴ παραδέξασθαι τὴν ἱστορίαν: ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ περὶ τὴν παρωνυμίαν πρίνου μὲν πρὸς πρίσιν, σχίνου δὲ πρὸς σχίσιν: περὶ οὗ σὺ μὲν ἀπεφήνω, ὡς καταλαβὼν τίνα τρόπον ἐν μὲν ἑλληνικαῖς φωναῖς τοιαῦτα ὁμοφωνεῖν συμβαίνει, ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἑβραΐδι τῷ παντὶ διέστηκεν: ἐγὼ δὲ ἔτι ἀμφιβάλλω: ἐπείπερ φροντίσας τῶν κατὰ τὸν τόπον, τῷ καὶ αὐτὸς ἠπορηκέναι ἐν αὐτοῖς, οὐκ ὀλίγοις Ἑβραίοις ἀνεθέμην πυνθανόμενος, πῶς παρ' αὐτοῖς ὀνομάζεται πρῖνος, καὶ πῶς λέγουσι τὸ πρίζειν: ἔτι δὲ εἰς τί μεταλαμβάνουσι τὴν σχῖνον τὸ φυτὸν, καὶ πῶς τὸ σχίζειν ὀνομάζουσιν. Οἱ δὲ τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν ἔφασκον ἀγνοεῖν φωνὴν τὴν πρίνου καὶ τὴν σχίνου: ἀπῄτουν δὲ αὑτοῖς δειχθῆναι τὰ δένδρα, ἵν' εἴδειεν ποίας ἐπὶ τούτων αὐτοὶ τάσσουσι φωνάς. Καὶ (φίλη γὰρ ἡ ἀλήθεια), οὐκ ἠπόρησα αὐτοῖς ὄψει παραστῆσαι τὰ ξύλα. Ἄλλος δὲ ἔφασκε τὰ μὴ ὀνομασθέντα τῶν Γραφῶν ποὺ οὐκ ἔχειν διαβεβαιώσασθαι, ὅπως Ἑβραϊστὶ λέγεται: προπετὲς δὲ εἶναι, τὸν ἀπορήσαντα φωνῇ τῇ Συριακῇ χρήσασθαι ἀντὶ τῆς Ἑβραΐδος: καὶ ἔλεγε, καὶ παρὰ τοῖς πάνυ σοφοῖς ἐνίοτε λέξεις τινὰς ζητεῖσθαι. Εἰ μὲν οὖν, φησὶ, ἔχεις τι παραστῆσαι τὴν σχῖνον ὅπως ποτὲ ὀνομασθεῖσαν ἔν τινι Γραφῇ, ἢ τὴν πρῖνον, ἐκεῖθεν ἂν εὕροιμεν τὸ ζητούμενον, καὶ τὴν παρ' αὐτὰ παρωνυμίαν: εἰ δὲ μηδαμοῦ ὠνομάσθη, καὶ ἡμᾶς διαλανθάνει τὸ τοιοῦτον. Τούτων οὖν ὅσον ἐπὶ μὴ ἱστορίᾳ ὑπὸ Ἑβραίων, οἷς συνέμιξα, εἰρημένων, ἐγὼ μὲν εὐλαβῶς ἔχω ἀποφήνασθαι, πότερον καὶ παρ' Ἑβραίοις ἡ ἰσοδυναμία τῶν κατὰ ταῦτα παρωνυμιῶν σώζεται, ἢ οὔ: σὺ δὲ ὅπως διεβεβαιώσω, αὐτὸς οἶδας ἴσως.