Matthew 2:17 to Baruch & Matthew 24:15 to Susanna
Matthew 2:17 to Baruch & Matthew 24:15 to Susanna
A third example, one we have considered already:
… while it [is] not directly cited in the New Testament, Ruth was probably attached to the Book of Judges at the time of Christ. Consequently, when the writer to the Hebrews cited these accounts of great faith from the Book of Judges, it would mean that Ruth was also recognized as Holy Scripture seeing that it was part of the Book of Judges.
The same argument applies with even greater force to Baruch as part of Jeremiah, and Susanna as part of Daniel.[1] Consider how weak in comparison is the case for Ruth as part of Judges, from Gallagher and Meade, p. 86, footnote 63: “We have no evidence that Jews ever counted Ruth as a part of the book of Judges, though Josephus may have done such. This reckoning – Ruth and Judges together as one book – became common in Christianity.” In fact it is first mentioned by Origen, 200 years after Christ, and long after the references to Judges had been written.
Note, however, that it is often assumed to be true, e.g., by Don Stewart when talking of the New Testament; but even more, by authors discussing Josephus when they are trying to make his 22 books equal the 24 books equal the 27 books equal the 39 books. Thus the juxtaposition all in one sentence from Gallagher and Meade: “no evidence that Jews ever” versus “Josephus may have done such”—meaning there is no actual evidence whatsoever that Josephus really did so, there is just speculation that he “may have” done so, as part of making Josephus’ statement fit the Protestant canon.
Those who accept Origen’s statement about Ruth being part of Judges as sufficient evidence of Jewish beliefs and practices, usually want to reject his other claims about the Jewish canon, such as that the Jewish leaders “concealed and removed [Susanna] from the Scriptures…” But there is corroborating evidence from before Origen (some quoted above, including the quotes from Hippolytus in his commentary on Susanna) for the latter statements, and nothing at all for the former. By any fair standard, the statements about Susanna being removed by the Jews are better supported.
Thus, if one accepts this claim about Ruth, then all of the Biblical references to “Jeremiah” (e.g., Matthew 2:17) and “Daniel” (e.g., Matthew 24:15) would count as “recognition of Susanna and Baruch as Holy Scripture,” because Susanna and Baruch are better evidenced as parts of them.[2]
[1] I avoid discussing much of the other evidence for Jewish acceptance of Susanna and Baruch as part of Daniel and Jeremiah, in order to just focus on comparing Origen’s claim about Ruth to his claims about Susanna. But for example, there is evidence from the Greek translations that the Hebrew Jeremiah and Baruch were on the same scroll – whatever you think of it, it is inarguably better evidence (being earlier, from Jews, etc.) than Origen’s claim provides for Ruth and Judges being seen as one Book by Jews at the time at Christ.
[2] In addition, of course, if one considers Origen’s claims about Ruth as evidence for a Jewish practice all the way back to the time of Christ, so too would his letter’s claims that the Christians accepted Susanna from the beginning also be found to go all the way back, since (a) they relate to his own Church and (b) have corroborating evidence from earlier Christian citations, etc. If, on the other hand, Origen was wrong about his own Church’s practice going back to Christ, then by any fair comparison his claim about the Jewish practice with Ruth is simply worthless.
