Home · Comparisons · Comparisons I

How Church Fathers preserve Jewish traditions absent from surviving rabbinic texts

Comparisons I, essay 1. Quotations are from works already on this site, linked to their work pages. No author is named on this page.

Rabbinic literature is not the whole of ancient Judaism. It is the literature that the rabbinic movement itself preserved: Mishnah, Talmuds, and midrashim, mostly edited centuries after the events they describe. Judaism in the centuries before and beside the rabbis was larger than that corpus — Hellenistic Jewish writers in Alexandria, sects Josephus names, the Jewish communities Origen talked to in Caesarea in the third century, the Jewish-Christian circles whose books Eusebius quoted. When those Judaisms wrote books, most of the books perished. What survives of some of them survives only because a Church Father quoted them, argued with them, or copied a report of what a Jewish informant had told him.

That is the subject of this essay: traditions that a reader of the rabbinic corpus alone would never meet, preserved in patristic pages. Four cases, in ascending order of doubt.

1. Whole Jewish books that survive only inside Eusebius

The clearest case is also the least controversial, because nothing about it depends on trusting a polemicist. In the ninth book of his Preparation for the Gospel, Eusebius of Caesarea copies long extracts from Alexander Polyhistor’s first-century BCE compilation Concerning the Jews, which itself quoted still earlier Jewish writers. Polyhistor’s compilation is lost. The Jewish writers he quoted are lost. What we have is Eusebius quoting Polyhistor quoting them — and, for some of them, Clement of Alexandria quoting the same material independently, which lets us check that Eusebius did not invent it.

Aristobulus of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher of the second century BCE, survives in this way. His project was to explain away the Bible’s physical language about God — hands, arms, face, feet, walking — as figurative, so that the Law could be presented as philosophy. The fragment preserved by Eusebius, and on this site in the Fragments of Aristobulus, opens with the question put to him:

“When, however, we had said enough in answer to the questions put before us, you also, O king, did further demand, why by our law there are intimations given of hands, and arm, and face, and feet, and walking, in the case of the Divine Power.”

There is no rabbinic Aristobulus. Rabbinic literature never mentions him, never argues his allegorical method, never preserves his name. A reader who knew only the rabbinic corpus would not know that a Jew in Ptolemaic Alexandria had already done, a century and more before Philo, what Philo is famous for doing: reading the Torah as philosophy. Philo survives in his own manuscripts; Aristobulus survives because a Christian bishop in the fourth century needed Jewish witnesses for the antiquity of Moses.

The same book of Eusebius preserves Eupolemus and Artapanus, Jewish historians of the second century BCE who retold the biblical story as a history of Jewish priority in civilisation. Eupolemus, quoted in Preparation for the Gospel, Book 9, makes Abraham the inventor of astronomy:

“In the tenth generation … Abraham was born, who surpassed all men in nobility and wisdom, who was also the inventor of astronomy and the Chaldaic art, and pleased God well by his zeal towards religion.”

Artapanus goes further, and is the better example precisely because his claims are wilder. His Joseph is not the dreamer of Genesis but an administrator who rationalises Egypt:

“He was also the inventor of measures, and for these things he was greatly beloved by the Egyptians. … whereas the Egyptians previously occupied the land in an irregular way, because the country was not divided, and the weaker were unjustly treated by the stronger, he was the first to divide the land, and mark it out with boundaries.”

And his Moses is Moses as the Greeks knew him — Musaeus, teacher of Orpheus, founder of Egyptian religion itself:

“She being barren took a supposititious child from one of the Jews, and called him Mouses (Moses): but by the Greeks he was called, when grown to manhood, Musaeus. And this Moses, they said, was the teacher of Orpheus.”

Artapanus’s Moses then invents ships, siege engines, philosophy, and the division of Egypt into thirty-six nomes, each with its own god. None of this is in rabbinic literature, and none of it could be: it belongs to a Hellenistic Jewish apologetic that presented Judaism to the Greek world by claiming that everything Greek civilisation prized had a Jewish origin. The rabbis, writing for Jews, had no use for that argument and did not preserve it. The Fathers, writing against Greeks and for the antiquity of their own faith, did. The tradition survives, in other words, because it was useful to someone else.

That is the essay’s first general point, and it recurs in every case: patristic preservation is not neutral archiving. It is selection by Christian interests. What survives is what Christians found quotable.

2. Living Jewish informants, reported by Origen

The second case is closer to the ground, and more delicate. Origen of Alexandria (third century) did something few Fathers did: he learned Hebrew, collated Hebrew manuscripts against the Greek, and talked to Jewish scholars. His Letter to Africanus, on this site as Origen to Africanus, defends the story of Susanna — the Daniel appendix about the two elders who falsely accuse Susanna — which is in the Greek Daniel used by the churches but not in the Hebrew Daniel. Africanus had objected that the story’s Greek wordplay (between tree names and verbs of cutting) cannot work in Hebrew. Origen answers, remarkably, by reporting what Jewish informants had actually told him.

First, his caution, which is worth quoting because it is the model for this whole essay:

“When I was considering this passage (for I myself saw this difficulty), I consulted not a few Jews about it, asking them the Hebrew words for prinos and prisein, and how they would translate schinos the tree, and how schisis. And they said that they did not know these Greek words prinos and schinos, and asked me to show them the trees, that they might see what they called them.”

Origen does not pretend to certainty where his informants had none: “I am cautious of affirming whether or not there is any correspondence to this play of words in the Hebrew.” That caution makes his positive reports more credible, not less.

What he does report is a living tradition about the Susanna elders that exists nowhere in rabbinic literature — for the simple reason that rabbinic literature does not contain Susanna at all. A learned Hebrew, Origen writes, gave him the elders’ names as if he did not reject the story:

“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, as they occur in Jeremias as follows: The Lord make you like Zedekias and Achiab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire, for the iniquity they did in Israel.”

The identification is with Jeremiah 29:21–23, where Zedekiah and Ahab are condemned as false prophets. Another Hebrew informant, Origen continues, told him “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.”

Here the negative claim is strong. Susanna is not a rabbinic book; the rabbis did not transmit it, comment on it, or name its elders. The tradition Origen records — elders identified with Jeremiah’s false prophets, elders exploiting messianic hope to seduce their neighbours’ wives — is a third-century Jewish oral tradition that reached us only because Origen wrote it down while defending a Christian book. Had Origen not needed Susanna for his argument with Africanus, it would be gone.

Origen goes on to make the same point in general form, and it is the closest any Father comes to stating this essay’s thesis. Some stories, he says, are known only from Christian sources because the authorities suppressed them: “about Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was slain between the temple and the altar, we learn from Jesus only, not knowing it otherwise from any Scripture.” The reference is to Matthew 23:35. The Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20–21 is the son of Jehoiada, not of Barachiah; the prophet Zechariah is the son of Berechiah (Zechariah 1:1) but is not recorded as slain between temple and altar. The story as Jesus tells it — a Zechariah son of Barachiah, murdered in the sanctuary — has no surviving biblical or rabbinic source. Whether it came from a lost Jewish tradition, a conflation of two Zechariahs, or a Christian retelling cannot now be settled; what can be said is that the tradition, in this form, survives only in the Christian text that quotes it, and in Origen’s discussion of it. The same holds for the sawing asunder of Isaiah, which Origen notes is “found in some apocryphal work” and guaranteed, in his view, by Hebrews 11:37 (“they were sawn asunder”). The apocryphal work is the Martyrdom of Isaiah, a pseudepigraphon, not a rabbinic text; rabbinic literature does not transmit the sawing as a freestanding tradition in this form.

The honest summary of this case is therefore twofold. Origen preserves genuine third-century Jewish traditions (the Susanna elders) that rabbinic literature never contained. And he also preserves, with explicit uncertainty, traditions whose origin he cannot verify (Zacharias, Isaiah) — and his uncertainty is itself part of the evidence.

3. A Jewish-Christian Jerusalem that the rabbis do not describe

The third case is Hegesippus, a second-century Christian writer whose five books of Memoirs are lost except where Eusebius quotes them in his Church History. The fullest quotation, on this site in the Fragments of Hegesippus and in Eusebius, Church History 2.23, concerns James the Just, the brother of Jesus, and his death in Jerusalem. Hegesippus’s James is a figure of extreme, almost Nazirite, asceticism:

“He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath.”

He alone, Hegesippus says, was permitted to enter the holy place, wearing linen, not wool; he was constantly found on his knees praying for the people, “so that his knees became hard like those of a camel”; and “because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, ‘Bulwark of the people’ and ‘Justice.’” The death itself — set on the pinnacle of the temple at Passover, thrown down, stoned, and finally killed by a fuller’s club, while praying forgiveness for his killers — is Hegesippus’s narrative, not Josephus’s. Josephus, whom Eusebius quotes in the same chapter, gives a shorter and different account: James brought before the Sanhedrin by the high priest Ananus and stoned. The two early accounts do not agree in detail, and the essay does not harmonise them.

What matters here is the negative. Rabbinic literature does not preserve a portrait of James the Just, his asceticism, his temple access, or his death. That is unsurprising — James was a Christian leader, and the rabbis had no reason to memorialise him — but it means that the Jerusalem Jewish-Christian community of the decades after 70, its piety, its sects (Hegesippus names seven), and its memory of its own first bishop, are known almost entirely through this one Christian quotation chain. The same chapter of Eusebius preserves, through Hegesippus, the story of the grandsons of Jude brought before Domitian — poor farmers with calloused hands, questioned about the kingdom of Christ and released — another Jerusalem tradition with no rabbinic parallel, because the rabbis were not preserving the family history of Jesus’ relatives.

A caution belongs here too. Hegesippus’s etymology of “Oblias” is his own gloss, not a verified Hebrew derivation, and his claim that James alone entered the holy place cannot be taken as a straightforward description of temple practice, where access was restricted to priests on duty. The value of the passage is not that every detail is reliable; it is that a whole milieu — a Torah-observant, temple-centred Jewish Christianity in Jerusalem — is visible here and almost nowhere else.

4. The cautionary case: Justin’s “excised passages”

Everything so far supports the title of this essay. The last case qualifies it, and it is included precisely for that reason. Justin Martyr, writing his Dialogue with Trypho in the mid-second century, accuses the Jewish teachers of his day of having “altogether taken away many Scriptures” from the Septuagint translation. In chapters 72–73 of the Dialogue, he produces the missing texts. From “Esdras,” on the Passover:

“And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts.”

From Jeremiah:

“I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.”

And from Psalm 95 (96): “Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned from the wood” — the words “from the wood,” Justin says, having been cut out, leaving only “the Lord has reigned.”

If Justin were right, these would be the essay’s strongest cases: Jewish scriptural traditions preserved only because a Christian quoted them in protest. But the modern assessment, following Helmut Koester and Oskar Skarsaune’s study of Justin’s proof-text tradition, runs the other way. Justin’s short quotations deviate markedly from the Septuagint as otherwise known; the Esdras passage is quoted elsewhere only by Lactantius; the Jeremiah and Psalm additions are attested elsewhere hardly at all. The likeliest explanation is not that Jews excised them, but that Justin drew on a Christian collection of testimonia — proof-texts assembled in Christian circles, sometimes adapted to fit the argument — and mistook, or polemically presented, his collection’s readings for the original text. Justin himself complicates his own charge: of the Jeremiah passage he says it “is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out)” — which is not how a long-lost text behaves, and which sits uneasily with the claim of wholesale excision. Trypho’s reply in the Dialogue is the sensible one: “Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.”

So what does Justin preserve? Not, on the present evidence, a lost Jewish text. He preserves a second-century Christian reading tradition — how Christians in his circle were already quoting Scripture christologically, and how far they were willing to go in attributing their own readings to Jewish tampering. That is itself a tradition absent from rabbinic texts, but of a different kind: it tells us about Christians, not about a lost Judaism. The case is kept in this essay as a warning label on the other three. A patristic claim that something was “cut out” or “hidden” is evidence for the claim, not proof of it. Origen knew this — his repeated “I am cautious of affirming” is the standard the other cases are measured against.

Conclusion: why the Fathers are an archive of Judaism at all

Put together, the four cases describe a pattern. Hellenistic Jewish apologetic survived because Eusebius needed it for the antiquity of Moses; third-century Jewish oral tradition survived because Origen needed it to defend Susanna; Jerusalem Jewish-Christian memory survived because Eusebius needed it for the succession of bishops; and a Christian testimonia collection survived because Justin needed it to prove, from Scripture, that the crucified man was foretold. In each instance the preserving motive was Christian and often polemical, and the preserved material is shaped by that motive. Aristobulus is quoted where he serves Eusebius’s argument; Origen’s informants are quoted where they serve Origen’s; Hegesippus is quoted where he serves the succession narrative.

None of that makes the material worthless — it makes it usable only with its label attached. The rule this essay has tried to follow is simple: quote the Father verbatim, name the chain of transmission (who quoted whom), state what rabbinic parallel, if any, exists, and say plainly where the evidence runs out. On those terms, the Fathers are indeed an archive of Jewish traditions the rabbinic corpus does not contain. They are a partial, interested, second-hand archive. But for Aristobulus, for Origen’s Susanna informants, and for Hegesippus’s Jerusalem, it is the only archive there is.

Related: Philo’s Word and Justin’s Logos · Eusebius quotes Josephus on James · Jewish law & temple · Biblical interpretation · Translation & transmission · Companion essay: Septuagint versus Hebrew readings

Bibliography

• Oskar Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 1987) — print; the study behind the assessment of Justin’s “excised passages” in section 4.
• Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, 4 vols. (Chico/Atlanta: Scholars Press/SBL, 1983–1996) — print; critical texts and translations of Aristobulus, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Demetrius and others, with the Eusebius/Clement transmission discussed.
• James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1985) — print; includes the Hellenistic Jewish fragments and the Martyrdom of Isaiah material discussed in section 2.
• Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised edition, vol. 3.1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986) — print; the standard survey of the Hellenistic Jewish authors and their fragmentary survival through Polyhistor and Eusebius.
• Origen, Letter to Africanus, and Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, in Ante-Nicene Fathers vols. 1 and 4 — open access: the public-domain translations quoted on this site, linked above to their work pages.
• Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, translated by E. H. Gifford (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903) — open access: public-domain translation, the source of the Book 9 extracts quoted here and on the site’s work page.
• Eusebius, Church History, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 1 — open access: the public-domain translation quoted for Hegesippus and Josephus on James.

Feeds the Day 19 bibliography: the print items above are carried into the scholar’s resources bibliography, with the open-access editions linked from their work pages.