INTRODUCTION Toward the Middle of the Third Century , Julius Africanus Sent a Letter to Origen, Chiding the Great Scholar for Em
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
chapter one INTRODUCTION Toward the middle of the third century ce, Julius Africanus sent a letter to Origen, chiding the great scholar for employing the Story of Susanna in debate with another Christian.1 Though the two Greek versions of Daniel used by Christians at the time both included Susanna, Africanus points to several problems with the story, including its absence from the Jewish ver- sion of Daniel and the presence of Greek puns in the story, which proves that it is not a translation from Hebrew.2 For these reasons, according to Africanus, Christians should reject the story as a genuine part of Daniel; indeed, they should consider it spurious (κίβδηλος) and a recent fabrication (νεωτερικὸς καὶ πεπλασµένος; §2).3 Origen responds with a detailed refuta- tion of each of Africanus’ points, especially the suggestions that the Chris- tian OT should mimic the Jewish Bible and that the Story of Susanna could not have been written in Hebrew. The sophisticated argumentation of these two early Christian biblical critics has impressed their modern counter- parts: Walther Reichardt hailed Africanus’ letter as a model of philological research, while Gilles Dorival declared Origen’s letter to have few rivals in the history of biblical studies.4 1 The most recent edition of the correspondence is 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; on the date of the correspondence, see pp. 498–501. For a biographical sketch of Africanus, see Iulius Africanus Chronographiae: The Extant Fragments, GCS NF 15 (ed. M. Wallraf; trans. W. Adler; Berlin, 2007), xiii–xvii; W. Adler, “Sextus Julius Africanus and the Roman Near East in the Third Century,” JTS 55 (2004): 520–550. 2 On the relationship between LXX-Daniel, which concludes with Susanna, and Theo- dotion-Daniel, which begins with Susanna, see [R.]T. McLay, The OG and Th Versions of Daniel (Atlanta, 1996). See also now C. Leisering, Susanna und der Sündenfall der Ältesten (Berlin, 2008). The arguments of Africanus receive extensive treatment in chapters 2 and 3 below. 3 For the paragraph divisions of the letters of Africanus and Origen, I rely solely on those found in de Lange’s edition, cited above in n. 1. These, being smaller, are much more convenient than the older divisions. 4 See W. Reichardt, Die Briefe des Sextus Juilius Africanus an Aristides und Origenes, TU 34/3 (Leipzig, 1909), 63: “Das Muster einer philologisch-kritischen Untersuchung möchte man den knappen und doch so inhaltreichen Brief des Africanus an Origenes nennen.” Compare the similar evaluation of Africanus’ letter by R.M. Grant, “Historical Criticism in the 2 chapter one This correspondence provides a fascinating glimpse at how some ancient Christians gauged the importance of Hebrew scripture for the Church. Origen and Africanus, along with virtually all Greek-speaking (and Latin- speaking) Christians of their day, used the various Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible that collectively were known as the Septuagint. Moreover, they shared with their contemporary Christians the sense that the Septu- agint was the authoritative form of the OT for the Church, either by virtue of its inspiration or simply by tradition. However, Origen and Africanus also recognized that the status of the Septuagint as a translation meant that it was in an important sense unoriginal and that the Hebrew form of their scriptures demanded some attention. For Origen, this acknowledgment bore fruit particularly (but not exclusively) in his massive multi-columned Bible known as the Hexapla, which enabled ready comparison between the traditional Greek Bible of the Church and the traditional Hebrew Bible of the Synagogue. For Africanus, we have seen that his letter to Origen expresses concern that the traditional Greek text of Daniel should conform largely to the Hebrew text extant among Jews. In light of this appreciation for Hebrew scripture in the work of Origen and Africanus, the present study explores how pervasive such a concern was in patristic literature more broadly. That is, here we are interested in uncov- ering some of the ways that Hebrew scripture featured in patristic biblical theory. This wording is deliberate. On the one hand, we will investigate, not the practice of exegesis, but the way the Fathers conceptualized their OT. The many excellent studies of patristic exegesis have disclosed important details regarding how the Fathers went about the business of interpreting their scripture. That is not the focus of this study; it is hoped, however, that some of the conclusions reached here will contribute toward the fur- ther illumination of patristic biblical interpretation. Rather, we concentrate here on patristic biblical theory, that is, the way the Fathers thought about their Bible. On the other hand, the term ‘Hebrew scripture’ indicates both that our study concerns that part of the Christian Bible that is shared with Jews (= OT) and that our particular focus is on its original language. More speci cally, we wish to examine how the Fathers thought about the original language of their OT and what consequences this had for the OT itself. The following four chapters divide easily into three sections, correspond- ing to the three words in the subtitle of this monograph. First, we turn our Ancient Church,” JR 25 (1945): 183–196 (190, 191–192). Dorival’s comment on Origen’s letter is found in “Origène, témoin des textes de l’Ancien Testament,” in J.-M. Auwers and A. Wénin (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible (Leuven, 1999), 351–366 (357)..