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.

12.  I had nearly forgotten an additional remark I have to make about the prino-prisein and schino-schisein 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    Ps. cxvi. 13. and that “is” means “man,” as we see from “Hesre aïs,” which is, “Blessed is the man.”27    Ps. i. 1.  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 find traces of this kind of contrivance on the part of the translators, which I noticed when I was collating the various editions.

Καὶ τοῦτο δὲ μικροῦ δεῖν ἔλαθέ με, ἀναγκαῖον παρατεθῆναι περὶ τοῦ πρῖνον_πρίσειν καὶ σχῖνον_ σχίσειν: ὅτι καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμετέραις Γραφαῖς κεῖνταί τινες οἱονεὶ ἐτυμολογίαι αἵτινες παρὰ μὲν Ἑβραίοις οἰκείως ἔχουσι, παρὰ δὲ ἡμῖν οὐχ ὁμοίως. Οὐδὲν οὖν θαυμαστὸν, ᾠκονομηκέναι τοὺς ἑρμηνεύσαντας τὰ περὶ τὴν Σωσάνναν ἀνευρεῖν ἤτοι σύμφωνον τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ, οὐ γὰρ πείθομαι, ἢ ἀνάλογον τῷ συμφωνοῦντι τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ ὄνομά τι παρώνυμον. Πῶς δὲ ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ Γραφῇ κεῖται τὸ τοιοῦτον, παραστήσομεν. Φησὶν ὁ Ἀδὰμ ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικὶ οἰκοδομηθείσῃ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκ τῆς πλευρᾶς τοῦ ἀνδρός: «Αὕτη κληθήσεται γυνὴ, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήφθη.» Φασὶ δὲ οἱ Ἑβραῖοι «ἐσσὰ» μὲν καλεῖσθαι τὴν γυναῖκα: δηλοῦσθαι δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς λέξεως τὸ «ἔλαβον,» ὡς δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ: «Χῶς ἰσουὼθ ἐσσά,» ὅπερ ἑρμηνεύεται: «Ποτήριον σωτηρίου λήψομαι:» «ἴς» δὲ τὸν ἄνδρα, ὡς φανερὸν ἐκ τοῦ: «Ἐσρὴ ἀΐς,» ὅπερ ἐστί: «Μακάριος ἀνήρ.» Κατὰ μὲν οὖν Ἑβραίους ἲς καὶ ἐσσὰ ἀνδρὸς, ὅτι ἀπὸ ἲς ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήφθη αὕτη. Οὐδὲν οὖν θαυμαστὸν ἑρμηνεύσαντάς τινας τὸ περὶ Σωσάννης Ἑβραϊκὸν, ἐν ἀποῤῥήτοις, ὡς εἰκὸς, πάλαι παρ' αὐτοῖς κείμενον, καὶ παρὰ τοῖς φιλομαθεστέροις καὶ φιλαληθεστέροις σωζόμενον, ἤτοι κυρίως ἐκδεδωκέναι τὰ τῆς λέξεως, ἢ εὑρηκέναι τὸ ἀνάλογον τοῖς κατὰ τὸ Ἑβραϊκὸν παρωνύμοις, ἵνα δυνηθῶμεν οἱ Ἕλληνες αὐτοῖς παρακολουθῆσαι. Καὶ γὰρ ἐπ' ἄλλων πολλῶν ἔστιν εὑρεῖν οἰκονομικῶς τινα ὑπὸ τῶν ἑρμηνευσάντων ἐκδεδομένα: ἅπερ ἡμεῖς τετηρήκαμεν συνεξετάζοντες πάσας τὰς ἐκδόσεις ἀλλήλαις.