OVERVIEW FROM ORIGEN: “SUSANNA IS FOUND IN EVERY CHURCH”
Rather than give you my own biased and misleading overview of the canon debate, I will skip that universal practice (can I get an “Amen!”?) and simply continue with the evidence: specifically, a longer quotation from the letter about Susanna that Origen wrote to Africanus in 248 AD (200 years after Christ and 150 years before Jerome and Rufinus). I do so because it is, itself, an overview. It specifically discusses whether Susanna is canon (without using the term) and whether it ought to be. And Origen is one of the absolutely crucial Fathers in the canon debate:
Origen is the main source of information on the use of the texts that were later officially canonized as the New Testament. … Origen is not the originator of the idea of biblical canon, but he certainly gives the philosophical and literary–interpretative underpinnings for the whole notion.[1]
The letter will also quickly show us which side Origen was on—and why. Note that we are not concerned about whether Origen’s position or the Church’s position was right; we only want to know what their position was and why they held it. Hence the frequent use of “…”—but for the substance of what Origen said about Susanna, you can always read the whole thing:[2]
Origen to Africanus, … 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…
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 … find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; …
In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behooves 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, … 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. ….
3. And in many other of the sacred books I found sometimes more in our copies than in the Hebrew, sometimes less. …
4. … 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? … And, forsooth [i.e., the rest of this sentence is sarcasm], when we notice such things, we are immediately 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…?
5. In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, “You shall not remove the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set.” … 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… 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. ….
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 …
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. …
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). … 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.
… 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.
…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, as the Spirit would call them. …
13. … 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,[3] you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do. Tobias himself says…
This, then, is my defense. 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. …
A couple of specific items to note for discussion later in this book:
(A) In section 13, Origen notes that the Christian Churches accept Tobit (Tobias) and Judith with full knowledge that the Jews of his time claimed that these books were not even Apocrypha to them, let alone Scripture.
(B) Origen uses Tobit as full Scripture in order to prove that Susanna is also Scripture. He uses Tobit (alleged Apocrypha) to prove that part of Daniel (Canon) is authentic Scripture. Africanus, on the other hand, cites to Tobit to question whether Susanna is authentic Scripture.[4] I.e., both sides of the discussion agree entirely that Tobit is full Scripture, not Apocrypha, and they use it confirm the most important doctrine, dogma, etc. of them all: what is Scripture.
At no point does Origen express any concept whereby a book accepted by the Churches as Scripture would be seen as wrong, inferior (Ecclesiastical or “only to be read” or “not to be used to confirm doctrine”) or in any way second class because those who “scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them” say it is not Scripture. To the contrary, he uses just such a book (Tobit) as a “canon within the canon” to determine what else is included as Scripture.[5]
Moreover, he makes very clear his belief that the Christians have the true Scripture, not the Jews. The Jewish leaders “pretended to the Jews … deceived the wives of their countrymen. … hid from the knowledge of the people … took away from the people every passage … concealed and removed from the Scriptures…”
So sayeth Origen. Agree or disagree, it does not matter. The point is: so sayeth Origen.
According to Origen, the distinction between Christian Scripture and the Jewish canon is that the Christians had the true and complete set of the “Jewish Scriptures,” while the Jews did not. And yet, Kruger listed Origen as support for the claim that “the Christian church widely adopted the Old Testament books and not the Apocrypha.” He does so not only despite what Origen says about Susanna, and what Origen says about the Scriptures in general, but also despite the fact that Origen expressly says “the Churches use Tobias” even though “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.”
And consider this quote from Gallagher and Meade:
Origen’s letter to Julius Africanus regarding the status of the story of Susannah —a deutero-canonical[6] addition to Daniel – seemed to suggest not only that Christians should consider Susannah an authentic element of the text of Daniel, but also that the identity of scriptural books should be decided by the church and not by Jews. (p. 29).
Seemed to suggest? Origen “seemed to suggest” that Christians “should consider” Susanna an authentic element of the text of Daniel? Origen “seemed to suggest” that the identity of scriptural books “should be” decided by the Church and not by Jews?
Or consider Gary Habermas, co-author of The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, who tells us that the Apocrypha:
… are not very well attested … in the early church (where they seldom pop up until the Fourth Century AD) … and have nothing to do with Christianity.[7]
But Origen’s letter attests that Susanna, Tobit and Judith had everything to do with Third Century Christianity and Third Century Christian Scripture. According to Origen—“the main source of information on the use of the texts that were later officially canonized”—what they have nothing to do with are the Jewish Scriptures from which they had been “concealed and removed” in the 200 years since Christ.
Having read Origen’s letter, you can evaluate Habermas, Kruger, Gallagher, Meade, me, and anyone else who speaks about Origen and his beliefs. Compare the evidence to the author’s description of the evidence. Judge each author by a “canon” of your own. Someone’s claims about evidence (a) always say something about them and (b) occasionally say something about the evidence as well.[8]
One last thing before we dive in: It is always possible that Origen (or any Father) was overstating the case when he said that the whole Church agreed with him and always had—but in this case, there are many pieces of corroborating evidence to back him up on his claim.
Earlier in time, Hippolytus (235 AD) gave us a full commentary “On Susanna” (a typical Bible commentary, going through the Scripture line by line).[9] His comment on verse “8. And the two elders saw her” says:
These things the rulers of the Jews wish now to expunge from the book, and assert that these things did not happen in Babylon, because they are ashamed of what was done then by the elders.
And then there is Tertullian (Five Books against Marcion, Book V, Chapter IX, 208 AD), forty years before Origen:
It is necessary for me to lay claim to those Scriptures which the Jews endeavour to deprive us of, and to show that they sustain my view.[10]
Going back another seventy years, we have Justin Martyr. Justin is not even 50 years removed from the writing of the last of the New Testament books, if we accept the early dates. If we accept later dates, he might even have entered the Church before the last Books were written. He is writing in 155 AD, describing a debate 20 years earlier (135 AD) with the Jew Trypho:
your teachers… have altogether taken away many Scriptures … but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you…[11]
But we need to go all the way back and begin at the very beginning—because none of these Fathers are the Apostles. Even Justin Martyr is writing 100 years after Christ. Perhaps the “later addition” of Apocrypha occurred during that interim. To explore that possibility, we need to start with the Bible itself.
…Such writers, like Matthew, feel that they as Christians understand the Jewish Scriptures better than the Jews – indeed, that the only real Jew is a Christian. “Israel” so-called is a nation of imposters for, as Paul had said, ‘he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly.’ (Rom. 2.28-9)[12]
It is in the New Testament, as written by the Divinely inspired Evangelists, that we read of the Jews dividing into two groups: the “real Jews” that become Christian and the “imposters” who are called Jews. Therefore, although “the Jews” of the Old Testament might be a better starting place chronologically, I believe that there are very good reasons for Christians to start with the New Testament instead.[13]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen.
[2] Available online at www.newadvent.org/fathers/0414.htm. I would also recommend a brief update discussing the modern scholarship on the substantive issues, posted by Gallagher on his blog at www.sanctushieronymus.blogspot.com/search/label/Susanna .
[3] Origen also refers to Tobit as Scripture repeatedly in other works; see e.g., First Principles 3, 2, 4 (“… such a statement will perhaps appear incredible, unless it be confirmed by the testimony of holy Scripture. …That certain thoughts are suggested to men’s hearts either by good or evil angels, is shown both by the angel that accompanied Tobias…” www.newadvent.org/fathers/04123.htm) and On Prayer 6 (“the scripture says, “The prayer of both was heard before the presence of the great Raphael and he was sent to heal them both,”” www.tertullian.org/fathers/origen_on_prayer_02_text.htm). He does the same with Judith; see Homily 20 on Jeremiah, 7.3 (“I want to give an example from Scripture … Judith made an agreement …”, not available online) and On Prayer 8 (“it is open to everyone to select any number of them for himself from the Scriptures… It was, moreover, after offering holy prayer that Judith…”
[4] “…how is it that they who were captives among the Chaldæans, lost and won at play, thrown out unburied on the streets, as was prophesied of the former captivity…” Paragraph 2.
[5] When discussing Origen as proof of the New Testament canon, Kruger is quite clear that debate does not determine status: “… overplaying of disagreements over canonical books also happens in other areas. …. church fathers occasionally acknowledge that a particular book is “disputed” by some. … Origen is simply noting exceptions to a more broadly established trend. Thus, it is misleading to use this passage as evidence that John’s letters were not regarded as canonical. That is more than this language can bear. At most, it reveals that in certain quarters of the church some disagreements over these books continued to occur (which is hardly surprising)…” (p. 265-266) and “Why cannot Origen accept a book as genuine and, at the same time, acknowledge that others had doubts about it? Kalin seems to think that if Origen admits that some have doubts about a book, then that must mean Origen himself rejects it—but this simply does not follow.” (p. 285).
[6] They had previously told us that “[Deuterocanonical] refers to books that were not recognized as authoritative until a later time,” but Origen is writing about Susanna’s universal canonicity more than a century before several New Testament Books (Revelation and several Epistles, etc.) achieve consensus as authoritative; and Esther will still be excluded on some Old Testament canon lists more than 100 years after Origen is writing. Their definition of Deuterocanonical is a conclusory statement: it just assumes that the Books were, indeed, added later. And of course, the term “Apocrypha” is also a conclusory label as well.
[7] www.garyhabermas.com/qa/qa_index.htm
[8] I am talking of bias, not bad intentions. My guesses are that Habermas did not put enough thought into the specific words he wrote on the website; Gallagher and Meade are perhaps just inconsistent (they sometimes seem more accepting of Origen’s letter as clear evidence); and Kruger appears to have simply forgotten all about Susanna while writing his footnote.
[9] www.newadvent.org/fathers/0502.htm
[10] www.newadvent.org/fathers/03125.htm
[11] Sections 71-73, at www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm
[12] The Spirit and the Letter: Studies in the Biblical Canon by John Barton, p. 78 (SPCK, 1997).
[13] I certainly do not support any form of anti-Semitism. My only point in using such language is to convey what the ancients actually thought. I believe that trying to soften words or tone would simply exacerbate the misunderstanding of the ancients that I am trying to address.
