We have no list of canonical books
from Julius Africanus. Nevertheless, his letter to Origen against the
authenticity of Susanna preserves certain statements of principle relevant to
the present discussion. Africanus intends his letter to demonstrate that
Susanna is no genuine part of the Book of Daniel: το μερος
τουτο βιβλιο
κιβδηλον ον (“this part of the book is spurious”; §2).( The
paragraph divisions follow those in the most recent edition of the
correspondence: N. de Lange (ed.), Origène, La Lettre à Africanus sur
l’histoire de Suzanne, in Origène, Philocalie, 1–20: Sur les Écritures,
SC 302 (ed. M. Harl; Paris, 1983), 469–578.) He assembles seven arguments in support of
this aim.
1. The form of prophetic inspiration
is inconsistent with that of the genuine parts of Daniel (§3)
2. Daniel’s cross examination of the
two villains is silly (§4)
3. The Greek play on words is proof
that there is no Hebrew original (§5)
4. Historical inaccuracies preclude
the sixth-century prophet from having
composed Susanna (§6)
5. The story is absent from the Jewish
version of Daniel (§7)
6. Contrary to the nature of true
prophecy, Daniel quotes scripture in the
story (§8)
7. The style of the story diverges
from the rest of Daniel (§9)
One should note carefully that
Africanus’ third argument concerns the language in which Susanna was composed,
while the fifth argument concerns the Jewish reception (rather, rejection) of
Susanna. Africanus draws no explicit connection between these two points; in
fact, he does not even juxtapose them, but inserts a historical argument in the
middle. I stress this here because students of this correspondence have
sometimes combined these two arguments and Origen’s response to them, as we will see. The third argument regarding the language of composition will feature
prominently in our discussion in the next chapter. Here, we are concerned with
the fifth argument.
According to Africanus, the absence of
Susanna in the Jewish version of Daniel, more than anything else, condemns the
story as inauthentic.
Προ δε τουτων απαντων ηδε η περικοπη συν αλλαις δυο ταις επι τω τελει παρα
των 'Ιουδαιων ειλημμενω Δανιηλ ουκ εμφερεται.(§7)
Before all these things, this pericope
along with two others at the end [= Bel and the Dragon] does not circulate in
the [version of] Daniel received from the Jews.
Unfortunately, Africanus keeps his
comments rather terse, leaving his readers to wonder why he considered this
particular argument so powerful, how exactly he conceived of the relationship
between the Christian OT and the Jewish Bible, and what implications this
statement has for other books of the Bible. (Edmon L. Gallagher, Hebrew
Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theology: Canon, Language, Text
[Supplements to Vigilae Christianae 114; Leiden: Brill, 2012], 30-31)
There is very little extant information for Africanus’ views on
the OT canon, but he does make two important statements on the topic in his
letter to Origen. The second of these we have already examined, finding that §7
of his letter does not necessarily contain a general endorsement of the
synagogal criterion, though Origen so understands it. The first statement comes
at §5, which, in the edition of Walther Reichardt, closes with these words: εξ ‘Εβραιων δε τοις ‘Ελλησι μετεβληθη
πανθ’
οσα
της
παλαιας διαθηκης φερεται (“everything that circulates as part of the OT
was translated from Hebrew to Greek”).
This statement forms the conclusion to a discussion of the puns
contained in the Greek text of Susanna 54–55 and 58–59. Daniel interrogates separately
the two villainous elders, cleverly inducing them to implicate themselves.
Theodotion’s version of Daniel contains the following account of these
interviews, with the crucial puns italicized.
First Interview (Sus. 54–55)
νυν ουν ταυτην ειπερ
ειδες, ειπον ‘Υπο τι δενδρον ειδες αυτους ομιλουντας αλληλοις; ο δε ειπεν ‘Υπο
σχινον. ειπε δε Δανιηλ ‘Ορθως εψευσαι εις την σεαυτου κεφαλην ηδη γαρ αγγελος
του θεου λαβων φασιν παρα του θεου σχισει δε μεσον.
“Now therefore, if you really saw this woman, tell: Under what
tree did you see them having intercourse together?” Then he said, “Under a
mastich.” Then Daniel said, “Truly you have lied to the detriment of your
own head, for already as the angel of God receives the sentence from God he will
split you in two.”
Second Interview (Sus. 58–59)
νυν ουν λεγει μοι ‘Υπο τι
δενδρον κατελαβες αυτους ομιλουντας αλληλοις; ο δε ειπεν ‘Υπο πρινον. ειπε δε
αυτω Δανιηλ ‘Ορθως εψευσαι και συ εις την στεαυτου κεφαλην μενει γαρ ο αγγελος
του θεου την ρομφαιαν εχων πρισαι σε μεσον, οπως εξολεθρευση υδας.
“Now, therefore, tell me: Under what tree did you catch them
having intercourse together?” Then, he said, “Under an evergreen oak.”
Then Daniel said to him, “Truly you also have lied to the detriment of your own
head, for the angel of God is waiting with the sword to saw you in two
so as to destroy you.”
Africanus points out to Origen that the play on words indicates
that the story of Susanna was written in Greek. ‘Εν μεν ουν ελληνικαις
φωναις τα τοιαυτα αμοφωνειν συμβαινει,
παρα
την
πρινον το πρισαι και σχισαι παρα την σχινον,
εν
δε
τη
εβραιδι τω παντι διεστηκεν (“Now, using Greek words, such things happen to
sound alike, prisai alongside prinos and schisai alongside
schinos, but in Hebrew they are completely different”; §5). He is not
alone in his recognition of this point; in fact, Origen responds by saying that
he has already perceived the problem (Ep. Afr. 10; cf. Origen, apud Jerome,
Comm. Dan. 13:54–55). Jerome reports that a certain Jewish teacher
mocked the story due to the presence of the Greek puns (Praef. Dan.
23–27), and he says that the puns led Porphyry to conclude that the entire book
of Daniel was a Greek document (Comm. Dan., prol.). (Ibid., 63-65)
