HOW SUSANNA CAN DEFEAT THE CASE FOR CHRISTIANITY
HOW SUSANNA CAN DEFEAT THE CASE FOR CHRISTIANITY
Susanna is presented as a book in the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, but is Chapter 13 of Daniel in Catholic Bibles and the first chapter of Daniel in the Orthodox Bible.[1] Unfortunately, by not being a definitive “book,” it can get lost in the discussion, which seems to lead to a massive amount of confusion and error when discussing the Apocrypha.
Consider Michael J. Kruger’s Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books—an attemptto prove that Christians have “good reasons” for believing in the authenticity of the New Testament canon.[2] He discusses the Apocrypha in a long footnote:[3]
In the first few centuries of the church we have good evidence that the dominant position (though not the only position) was an acceptance of the Jewish Old Testament canon[4] and not the Apocrypha. This would include church fathers like Melito of Sardis, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Hilary of Poitiers, Gregory of Nazianzus, Rufinus, and Jerome. Thus, it appears that both the Jewish “church” and the first centuries of the Christian church widely adopted the Old Testament books and not the Apocrypha (of course there were minority opinions, but this does not contradict the model).
Emphasis added in order to emphasize just how incredibly wrong that statement really is. Professor Kruger’s point is that the early Church accepted the 27 Books of the New Testament, and his goal is to show that we can trust the early Church to have identified the authentic Apostolic writings. But given Kruger’s beliefs, for that to be true, the early Church had to also reject all the “wrong” books, i.e., all the Apocrypha. He cites ten witnesses (essentially referring us to their canon lists) to disprove the claim that the early Church accepted the Apocrypha.
To see how wrong he is about that, we start with Rufinus, and we focus on Susanna. Here is Rufinus, in the year 400 AD, in his own words, as part of a disagreement with Jerome:
There has been from the first in the churches of God and especially in that of Jerusalem, a plentiful supply of men who being born Jews have become Christians … [and yet] has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error? For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna … has by him [Jerome, says Rufinus (incorrectly)] been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed…[5]
Rufinus tells us that Susanna is Scripture to the early Church and always has been. But how do we know that Rufinus was correct? Partly, we can corroborate it with evidence from his enemy, Jerome. On whether Susanna is accepted as Scripture, they agree entirely.
First, we have Book 2 of Jerome’s Apology Against Rufinus (402 AD):[6]
… In reference to Daniel … We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy [the Septuagint], and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion[7] [the modern Catholic/Orthodox version, with Susanna]. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna … which [is] not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.[8]
Jerome also wrote a Prologue to Daniel, where he tells us:
I also wish to emphasize to the reader the fact that it was not according to the Septuagint version but according to the version of Theodotion himself that the churches publicly read Daniel. … all the churches of Christ, whether belonging to the Greek-speaking territory or the Latin, the Syrian or the Egyptian, publicly read this edition…[9]
So, Jerome repeatedly confirms that the early Church is not following the Jewish/Protestant canon and accepts Susanna as Scripture.[10] Thus, everyone in the dispute is agreeing that to the early Church, Susanna is Scripture and always had been.
But also, there is much earlier corroborating evidence to further confirm it, from a discussion 150 years before Jerome and Rufinus wrote:
Letter from Africanus to Origen: “… you referred to that prophecy of Daniel which is related of his youth [i.e., the story of Susanna]. … I cannot understand how it escaped you that this part of the book is spurious. … this section, along with the other two at the end of it, is not contained in the Daniel received among the Jews …”[11]
Letter from Origen to Africanus: “… You begin by saying, that … I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. … 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 …”[12]
We will discuss Origen’s explanation of why the Church did not use the Hebrew Scriptures in detail shortly, but for now the “why” does not matter. Origen tells us that every Church of Christ held Susanna as Scripture, while knowing that Susanna is not in the Hebrew version of Daniel—and telling us so 150 years before Jerome and Rufinus also tell us so.
The position of the early Church is crystal clear—in fact, it is crystal clear just from the Fathers cited by Kruger (let alone all the other evidence). Susanna was Scripture, full Christian Scripture, regardless of the Jewish canon, and regardless of it not being written in the Hebrew language or anything else. The early Church fully accepted this Apocrypha along with the Jewish/Hebrew Scriptures (as the Jews of its time (or our time) define them, and as Protestants accept them). The evidence for that includes each and every one of the other Fathers on Kruger’s list:
Athanasius repeatedly refers to Susanna as Scripture, e.g. “it is equally plain from what follows that … in the same Scriptures … And in Daniel, ‘Susanna cried out with a loud voice and said, O everlasting God, that know the secrets, and know all things before they be.’ Thus, it appears that …”[13]
Epiphanius: “God knoweth all things before they be, as scripture says” (Susanna 42).[14]
Eusebius: “At this time also Africanus… was well known. There is extant an epistle of his to Origen, expressing doubts of the story of Susannah in Daniel, as being spurious and fictitious. Origen answered this very fully.”[15]
Cyril of Jerusalem: “And if further a man peruse all the books of the Prophets, both of the Twelve, and of the others, he will find many testimonies concerning the Holy Ghost; … The chaste Susanna was condemned as a wanton; …We bring this forward as a testimony… And indeed it were easy to collect very many texts out of the Old Testament, and to discourse more largely concerning the Holy Ghost.”[16]
Hilary of Poitiers: “…refute their vain and pestilent teaching by the witness of the evangelists and apostles. … They say that the Father has prescience of all things, as the blessed Susanna says, O eternal God, that know secrets, and know all things before they be; that He is incomprehensible, as it is written …”[17]
Gregory of Nazianzus refers to Susanna as part of Daniel and, therefore, as Scripture. “Passing by the elders in the book of Daniel; for it is better to pass them by, together with the Lord’s righteous sentence and declaration concerning them, that wickedness came from Babylon from ancient judges.” [Susanna 5 (Daniel 13:5)][18]
That is nine out of the ten people on Kruger’s list who are on the record as considering Susanna (Apocrypha) as full Christian Scripture, and the absence of Melito of Sardis is because he never said anything about Susanna. We have very little from Melito, so that is not surprising. However, his canon list uses the Septuagint name for Daniel—and the Septuagint version of Daniel definitely included Susanna. Thus, based on the words of his list—which is (a) the only statement from Melito himself that we possess on the subject, and (b) why Kruger cited to Melito—the evidence shows that his Daniel would have included Susanna.
So yes, there was debate with the Jews. Yes, there are individuals within the Church (Africanus and Jerome) who seem to want to agree with the Jews. Yes, accepting Susanna does not mean that all the other Apocrypha were accepted. Yes, yes, yes…
But the factual inquiry is as simple and conclusive as it could possibly be. The evidence shows us that there is no dispute or argument over the early Church’s position on Susanna. Every single ancient source that Kruger himself is citing is telling us that the early Church saw it as canonical Scripture. Unanimously. There is not even a “minority view.” Jerome tells us that Susanna is accepted and publicly read by “all the churches of Christ, whether belonging to the Greek-speaking territory or the Latin, the Syrian or the Egyptian.” He could not have been more specific or certain on that point.
Kruger’s case for the authenticity of the New Testament was based on “an acceptance of the Jewish Old Testament canon and not the Apocrypha.” But according to his own witnesses, for 400 years—at least sixteen generations, and the same time period from the Pilgrims to us today—“all the churches of Christ” (as Jerome says) and “every Church of Christ” (as Origen says) accepted Susanna as “the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit” (as Rufinus says).
Susanna, alone, kills the horse. As far as Kruger’s case for Christianity is concerned, the rest of this book is just me repeatedly beating that dead horse’s corpse, of course.[19]
Three key points to consider. First, a brief interlude to discuss wordsmithing. What we often hear is that the name “Daniel” in a Protestant Bible matches the name “Daniel” on an ancient canon list. Some go further and mistakenly handwave Susanna away by claiming it is just part of a “textual variation” of Daniel. While true, such things are completely irrelevant to all discussion of Susanna.
We are discussing Susanna, not Daniel. The question is whether a list’s mention of “Daniel” is referencing the Daniel that includes Susanna or not. When focusing on Susanna, every other word of Daniel is the irrelevant textual variation! We do not care in the slightest about the “rest of” Daniel. Yes or no, “Professor,” did the list’s mention of “Daniel” include Susanna?
The answer is always yes and can only ever be yes. The explanation that “they thought Susanna was part of Daniel” forms the actual proof: if it was a part of Daniel, it was accepted. The author of the list did not mean solely the Protestant Daniel, and (except for Melito and unknown authors) his own use of the term proves that. For the others, the evidence may be circumstantial, but it is still the evidence. The lists should, therefore, say “Daniel [and Susanna]” because the word “Daniel” meant (to the Father who wrote it) what to Protestants would be said as “Daniel and Susanna.” The modern translator should be trying to convey the correct modern English meaning of the Father’s Greek word “Daniel.” Instead, they bury it in a footnote and confuse everyone.
In fact, Protestant scholars go to great lengths to stress this exact concept all the time when discussing the canon—it is just that they do not do so with Susanna. Instead, they do so with a different lady: Ruth. Read any discussion of the canon lists that are just numbers (such as Josephus, in which he mentions “22 books”) or read any discussion of a list that specifically mentions the book “Judges” (without mentioning the Book of Ruth): inevitably, as part of arguing that the references are actually to all 39 books of the Protestant canon as they are currently thought of and named, someone expresses the idea that Judges and Ruth were thought of as one book by the ancients, so therefore Ruth is part of that canon.[20]
Exactly! The ancients also thought of Daniel and Susanna as one Book. The same logic that identifies Ruth was part of a canon list that only indicates Judges makes Susanna part of the early Church’s canon lists when they said Daniel.[21] The only difference is that the scholars stress the inclusion in one context and dismiss the inclusion in another.
But the result is inarguable: the canon lists of the early Church used the word Daniel to refer to a Book that included both Daniel and Susanna.
Second, I shall preach a gospel of being “fair and consistent”—but not out of a spirit of Christian goodness. It is simply a practical necessity because this is the case for Christianity. Notably, the case presupposes that the judge will always rule based on evidence, not speculation. I.e., the evidence shows that Jesus Christ rose from the dead—and the evidence wins despite endless speculation otherwise.
For example, the judge will rule that someone’s use of the word “Matthew” refers to the physical Book we call “Matthew” because the ordinary meaning of a word stands, absent sufficient evidence to the contrary. So, too, will the Septuagint name for Daniel refer to the Septuagint Book (with Susanna). There is plenty of evidence proving the ordinary meaning of the term Melito used, and that definition would be the basis of the ruling in an evidentiary hearing. While speculation and debate to the contrary exists, meaningful evidence does not.[22]
Third, I will discuss Susanna itself in more detail later, including all the evidence from the centuries before the canon lists. However, if it seems to you that it would be a good idea to look into the possibility that the evidence from the period before the lists does not match what the lists indicate about Susanna, then please realize that you have proven to yourself that relying only on canon lists is a mistake for ignorant fools—because the fact that Susanna is on all of them did not satisfy you either. So, inclusion/exclusion by canon lists should never be the end of the inquiry for any other Book or timeframe.
But actually, for purposes of Kruger’s case, the “even earlier” Church is completely irrelevant. Because the point here is not actually about Susanna; it is what Susanna shows us about Kruger’s claim. No one is trying to prove that Susanna was Scripture. In fact, Kruger is the only Christian involved in the case, and he alone cares about such metaphysical “nonsense.” The opponent just wants to defeat the case and is using Susanna to do so.
The opponent’s point is that, because of Susanna, not a single one of the ten witnesses actually evidences the claim that Kruger was trying to prove: the “acceptance of the Jewish Old Testament canon and not the Apocrypha.” In effect, after ten witnesses have come and gone, Kruger has not yet presented a single shred of evidence to prove his claim.
So, then, what could earlier evidence prove? Simply that the early Church was entirely and completely wrong. After all, that is precisely what Jerome was saying: everyone had been unanimously accepting Susanna for centuries, but the Jews say that they should not have done so. Recall that Rufinus says that it “is called the correction of an error.” And per Jerome, those who might be wrong were “all the churches of Christ, whether belonging to the Greek-speaking territory or the Latin, the Syrian or the Egyptian.”
Kruger would only disprove his claim that the early Church correctly identified the authentic Books handed down by the Apostles. Even if he won the “case against the Apocrypha,” he would lose the case for Christianity.[23]
CANON LISTS AND SUSANNA
Below is a chart of every early canon list and whether Susanna is canon on each. For Christians, it is unanimous.
| FATHER/LIST/BOOK | Year | SUSANNA CANONICAL? | EVIDENCE |
| MELITO OF SARDIS | 170 | CANON FOR JEWS? | SEPTUAGINT NAME |
| MURATORIAN CANON | 170 | N/A | NT LIST |
| CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA | 203 | CANON | GREEK DANIEL |
| ORIGEN (JEWISH LIST) | 220 | NOT FOR JEWS | SEE THE LETTER |
| ORIGEN (TO AFRICANUS) | 248 | CANON | SEE THE LETTER |
| ORIGEN (CITATIONS) | 250 | CANON | PREP GOSPEL 6, 11 |
| EUSEBIUS (APPROVAL) | 324 | CANON | CH. HISTORY 6, 31, 1 |
| CODEX CLAROMONTANUS | 349 | CANON | VERSES DAN. 1600 |
| CODEX VATICANUS | 350 | CANON | DANIEL CHAPTER 1 |
| CODEX SINAITICUS | 350 | UNKNOWN | ALL DANIEL MISSING |
| CYRIL OF JERUSALEM | 350 | CANON | LECTURE 16: 29-32 |
| ST CATHERINE’S SYRIAC | 350 | CANON | AS SYRIAC DANIEL |
| CHELTENHAM LIST | 360 | CANON | DANIEL 1350 LINES |
| ATHANASIUS | 367 | CANON | 4 D. ARIANS 1, 12-13 |
| HILARY OF POITIERS | 367 | CANON | ON TRINITY 4: 7-8 |
| GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS | 380 | CANON | ORATION 2, 64 |
| AMPHILOCHIUS OF ICONIUM | 380 | CANON | ORATIO IN ILLUD |
| APOSTOLIC CANONS | 380 | CANON | BOOK 2, 51 |
| EPIPHANIUS PANARION 8.6.1 | 385 | CANON FOR JEWS | SEPTUAGINT |
| EPIPHANIUS PAN.76.22.5 | 385 | CANON | 2, 30, 9, 2 |
| JEROME (HELMETED ) | 390 | CANON | APOLOGY 2, 33 |
| EPIPHANIUS DE MENS. 4-5 | 392 | CANON FOR JEWS | SEPTUAGINT |
| THE COUNCIL OF HIPPO – 70 BISHOPS | 393 | CANON | AS DANIEL |
| AUGUSTINE | 397 | CANON | HOLY VIRGIN. 19 |
| COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE – 44-48 BISHOPS | 397 | CANON | AS DANIEL |
| JEROME (SOLOMON) | 398 | CANON | APOLOGY 2, 33 |
| RUFINUS | 400 | CANON | APOLOGY 2, 33 |
| JEROME (TOBIT/JUDITH) | 404 | CANON | APOLOGY 2, 33 |
| POPE INNOCENT I | 405 | CANON | AS DANIEL |
| COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE – 217 BISHOPS | 419 | CANON | AS DANIEL |
| CODEX ALEXANDRINUS | 450 | CANON | DANIEL CH.1 |
| CODEX EPHRAEMI R. | 450 | UNKNOWN | ALL DANIEL MISSING |
Explanations and discussion about the individual lists will come later in the book (but in case you are wondering, the stricken-out councils probably did not issue those canon lists: the much later evidence is dubious). Note that it is the canon list that is the evidence of Susanna’s canonicity. The other writings just evidence what the label “Daniel” meant, so that we correctly interpret the meaning of the words of the canon lists. This case for Susanna is a “canon list case” as much as the case for any other Book, in that we look to the Greek (etc.) words of the list but need external proof of their meaning.
Clearly, the evidentiary “arrow” of the canon lists points to Susanna every bit as much as it does to any other Old or New Testament Books.[24] Lose sight of this at your peril. The case for Christianity is based on the claim that the New Testament is authentic Apostolic testimony. Kruger was trying to prove that, and he failed. The canon lists are the very best evidence for his view, and yet what they evidence is that not one single person in the early Church held to the canon that Kruger claims they held—not even Jerome.
However, Susanna is not a full-length Book, and sometimes scholars try to distinguish it on that basis. I do not believe that such a tactic works in a real case, but I need not argue the point. Instead, let us turn to Baruch.[25]
[1] Susanna is a complete story, is three times as long as the Book of Obadiah, and could easily be a full Book separated from “Daniel” (as, indeed, the KJV organizes it). From the other direction, Daniel is a collection of writings, i.e., an anthology. So, Susanna could also “fit” into Daniel.
[2] Kruger argues that we have good factual reasons for believing that the entire New Testament is authentic, beyond “mere self-authentication.” As part of that, he offers proofs for all the Books, not just the Gospels. The book is a five-star must-read, in my opinion.
[3] As is so often the case, his entire thesis stands on a foundation that is briefly mentioned in a footnote: Ch. 6, note 11. If it matters, my copy of the book is from Crossway, 2012, first printing.
[4] Almost always, this and similar phrasing (whether from myself or other authors) means the canon as the Jews see it today—the same canon the Protestants keep. We will discuss later whether the Jews of antiquity really kept to that canon.
[5] www.newadvent.org/fathers/27052.htm
[6] www.newadvent.org/fathers/27102.htm
[7] Theodotion’s Greek Daniel superseded the Septuagint Greek version (also called the Seventy, or LXX: from the second century BC) that had been used by the Church until 150 AD. Both included Susanna—the Church just started with one version and switched to another. And, according to Kruger’s witnesses, no one in the Church of 400 AD had yet to even advocate for using a version without Susanna. Rufinus misunderstood what Jerome wrote, as Jerome does not actually call for the rejection of Susanna: “… Leaving this for the reader to pronounce upon as he may think fit …” https://tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_daniel.htm. (The Hebrew Daniel (without Susanna) was not being used by Christians; only a handful could even read it. Among them was Jerome, who translated it into Latin so that others could start to use it.) All this is endlessly misunderstood, e.g., the Orthodox Study Bible (Intro, p. vi, 2008 ed.) claims to have the original Bible because they have the Septuagint—but they are wrong, they too have the Theodotion Daniel.
[8] That last sentence is a detail forgotten, or misunderstood, by roughly 100% of authors 100% of the time when discussing these things. But what Jerome said to Rufinus is applicable to anyone else who claims Jerome matched the Jewish/Protestant canon: “I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna … the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.” So sayeth Jerome. It is clear from Rufinus and Jerome that anyone calling for the removal of Susanna in 400 AD would have found it a very unpopular position, which is presumably (a) part of why Jerome does not quite take that stance and (b) part of why Rufinus jumps to the mistaken conclusion that his enemy really was advocating to get rid of it. In any event, Jerome is, himself, evidence that there is still no actual controversy within the Church over Susanna, just the beginning of one that will play out later due to Jerome’s influence.
[9] www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm
[10] As full, complete, 100%, canonical Scripture. Neither Jerome nor Rufinus (nor anyone else) says that the early Church sees Susanna as “Ecclesiastical” or just “to be read” or “not to confirm doctrine” or anything of the sort. As far as the evidence shows, Susanna was just a piece of Daniel, even if the Jews did not accept it. Until Jerome, it was treated like everything else in Daniel, without any distinction whatsoever.
[11] www.newadvent.org/fathers/0413.htm. Note that Africanus is not really evidence of his view for any other Christian but himself: his letter is a request for an answer to the issues he is raising and gives no sign that anyone else within the Church was debating any of this at that time. Regardless, he ends the letter with: “I have struck the blow; do you give the echo; answer, and instruct me.” Origen’s letter back to him appears to have been the end of it.
[12] www.newadvent.org/fathers/0414.htm; there is earlier evidence for Suzanna as well, from Fathers not on Kruger’s list.
[13] Four Discourses against the Arians 1, 12-13. www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm.
[14] Panarion, Section 2, Heresy 30, Ebionites 9, 2. Not available online.
[15] Church History 6, 31, 1: www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm.
[16] Catechetical Lecture 16: 29-32 www.newadvent.org/fathers/310116.htm
[17] On the Trinity Book 4: 7-8. www.newadvent.org/fathers/330204.htm.
[18] Oration 2, 64. www.newadvent.org/fathers/310202.htm.
[19] If we seek the first list, or Bible, or Church or Father that does not accept Susanna, it would be from someone influenced by Jerome’s ideas in a later era. Edmon Gallagher (e.g., at www.academia.edu/14345165/) calls the “obelus” (the marking Jerome used to note that Susanna was not in the Hebrew Daniel) a “death warrant” for Susanna—but a death warrant is not an execution until it is actually carried out. So, then, who first takes it out? What is the first Bible whose Daniel does not have it, or the first canon list that really excludes it, or the first person to openly say it is not Scripture, etc.? I have long sought the answer, but no one seems to say. I did not find anything through 450 AD in my own searches.
[20] E.g., “He limits the number of canonical books in these three divisions to twenty-two. This would be the same as the current twenty-four – Ruth was attached to Judges, and Lamentation attached to Jeremiah.” https://blogs.blueletterbible.org/blb/2012/05/29/josephus-historical-evidence-of-the-old-testament-canon/
[21] There is actually far earlier evidence of this practice for Susanna than for Ruth: Origen (a Christian) is the first to mention this alleged Jewish practice for Ruth, and he does so 200 years after Christ. Compare this to Irenaeus, who was writing well before Origen in Against Heresy IV, 26, 3: “hear those words, to be found in Daniel the prophet: …” and then quoting Susanna 52-53. www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103426.htm). In addition, indirect evidence for Susanna would include the Church’s use of the Septuagint version of Daniel (which included Susanna), etc.
Moreover, Origen is also better evidence for Susanna than he is for Ruth because it is Origen talking about his own church (in fact, there is still ongoing debate over whether the Jews actually did combine Judges and Ruth). If a judge accepts what Origen says about Ruth as proof, then a judge is certainly going to accept what Origen says about Susanna.
[22] Thus, I devote less time to dealing with endless speculation than other books on the canon. I simply go with the position that I feel would win in the actual case for Christianity, based on the evidence.
[23] The same thing would happen, of course, if a judge ruled that Melito’s reference is insufficiently proved. What, then, is proved, except that the Church and the later nine Fathers were mistaken? This is actually why a judge would never even rule on it: either way, Kruger loses. Case dismissed.
[24] And it points more to Susanna than for some: e.g., Susanna is on every single list, but both Old Testament Books (notably Esther) and New Testament Books are missing on various canon lists.
[25] The other “longer form” pieces of Daniel and Esther raise essentially the same issue as Susanna, just with different evidence in support of their acceptance by the early Church. However, I do not have space in this book to discuss their evidence in detail.
