Therefore falleth unto her naught defiled; For a reflection is she of Eternal Light; Or again, mark the delicate balancing of sentences in the language put into the mouth of the sensualist, (ch. ii): 'Short is our life and full of pain, And there is no healing for the death of man, And none was ever known to have returned from the grave. For we were born at all adventure, And hereafter shall be as though we never had been; And thought is a spark at the beat of our heart, And by his heat oppressed. For the passage of a shadow is our life, And there is no return of our death, For it is fast sealed, and no man cometh back.' As an instance of another kind of parallelism exhibiting great ingenuity may be mentioned the famous Sorites in chap. vi, whereby the writer proves that the desire of Wisdom leads to a kingdom 1: : "The desire of Wisdom is the beginning of Wisdom, And the truest beginning of Wisdom is the desire for instruction, And the care for instruction is love, And love is the keeping of her laws, And attention to her laws is assurance of immortality, And immortality maketh us to be near unto God, Therefore the desire of Wisdom leadeth unto a kingdom.' The first member of the argument is not expressed, but is virtually contained in the preceding verse, and the 1 See note on vi. 18. 2 Cf. 2 Cor. i. 3, 4, where S. Paul accumulates яаракаλ‹îv and its derivatives. For such verbal refinements in Wisdom see Grimm, Einleit., p. 7. For examples of play on words in the New Testament see Phil. iii. 2, 3, kaтaтoμń, пeрiтoμý: Gal. v. final premiss before the conclusion might be, 'To be near unto God is to reign.' The wording of some of the clauses is a little varied, otherwise the Sorites is complete, and the predicate of the last of the premisses is predicated of the subject of the first in accordance with the rules of Logic. Instances of verbal refinement meet us in every page. Thus, οἱ φυλάξαντες ὁσίως τὰ ὅσια ὁσιωθήσονται (vi. II); οὖς—θρούς (i. 10); παισὶν—ἐμπαιγμόν—παιyvíos (xii. 25, 26); ȧpyà—épya (xiv. 5), are examples of artificial adornment which, though not so frequent in other Greek authors, are not without example in either of the Testaments 2. But it must be confessed that the straining after such effects sometimes degenerates into turgidity, and seems to be below the dignity of the subject. But while the contrasts are occasionally forced and the treatment is unequal, the general tenour of the work is highly pleasing, rising often into grand eloquence and expressing the noblest thought in the choicest diction. There is another connection in which the language of the Book is most interesting and valuable. Its utility in the study of the New Testament is undoubted. Many phrases that are commonly found in the later Scriptures can be traced to, or are illustrated by their use in, the Book of Wisdom. These are mentioned in the Commentary as they occur, but a few may be noticed here. When the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews would express the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, he uses the remarkable term ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης—a phrase which is not found in the Old Testament elsewhere but in Wisdom vii. 26, where Wisdom is called àravyaoμa φωτὸς ἀϊδίου. The expression χάρις καὶ ἔλεος, familiar to us in the New Testament (e. g. 1 Tim. i. 2), is used more than once in our Book; so onμeîa kai répara (S. John iv. 48) occurs viii. 8, and x. 16. That mysterious 11, 12, περιτομήν, ἀποκόψονται: Rom. i. 29, 30, 31, πορνεία, πονηρίᾳ; φθόνου, φόνου; ἀσυνέτους, ἀσυνθέτους. Comp. notes in Bishop Wordsworth's Greek Test., Matt. xxvi. 2. and 2 Thess. iii. 11; and Jowett, on Rom. i. 28. 3 Chap. iii. 9; iv. 15. phrase, of which so much has been made in modern controversy, els ròv aiova (1 John ii. 17) is used (ch. v. 15) in speaking of the just man's life beyond the gate of death. More than once in the Revelation we meet with the words, ağını yàp eio1: these are illustrated by the text in Wisdom: 'God proved them and found them worthy of Himself,' à§iovs éavroû. 'The day of visitation,' év μépa émoколns, of 1 S. Peter (ii. 12). is explained by the similar phrase in Wisd. iii. 7, év Kaip коs. The New Testament expressions, codos καιρῷ ἐπισκοπῆς. meaning 'death'; adeía 'suffering'; #аρáτшμа 'transgression'; ȧpíavros 'undefiled'; miriμía 'punishment'; are all illustrated by their use in this Book. IV. Place and date of Composition.-Author. BEFORE We attempt to investigate the authorship of the Book of Wisdom, it will be necessary to settle the place and approximate date of its composition. With regard to the former we can have no hesitation in assigning it to Alexandria. In no other locality could a Jew, as the author confessedly is, have written such a work. A Palestinian Hebrew, at the era when we shall shew reason to suppose it to have been composed, would scarcely have possessed so thorough a command of the Greek language as the author displays. Such a passage as that in chap. xiii. 3, which speaks of the beauty of material objects and calls Almighty God the first author of beauty,' is essentially different from purely Hebrew thought and points to a Hellenistic writer 2. Josephus himself confesses 3 that his countrymen had no taste for the study of foreign tongues, and were especially averse from Greek culture and education. The intimate acquaintance with Greek thought and philosophy displayed in this Book is superior to anything found at Jerusalem. The dogmas of the Old Testament were never developed in the form herein exhibited till the Jewish system came in contact with western philosophy, and thence drew terms, 1 Rev. iii. 4; xvi. 6; Wisd. iii. 5. modifications, and contrasts before unknown. Where could this close contact have occurred but at Alexandria and who but an Alexandrian Jew could have clothed the results in the only language that could adequately express them? Alexandria in the time of the Ptolemies was filled with Jews. It is computed that they numbered nearly one third of the whole population. Living thus in the very centre of heathen culture they could not fail to be influenced by the spirit of the place, and to compare their own imperishable belief and their own divine revelation with the restless speculations and manifold traditions which were presented to their notice by the heathens among whom they dwelt. Here they saw that Epicurean indifference, that luxurious selfishness, that gross materialism, that virtual denial of Providence, which are so sternly and eloquently rebuked in the Book of Wisdom. Here they witnessed that bestial idolatry, and that debased revolt against the pure worship of God, which meet with such severe handling in this work. A man who had these things daily before his eyes, whose righteous soul was continually vexed with this opposition to all his cherished beliefs, would naturally thus deliver his 1 testimony, and brand the surrounding heathenism with the fire of his words. The modes of worship thus assailed, the local colouring of details, the political allusions, are distinctively Egyptian, point conclusively to an Alexandrian author, are too personally antagonistic, and shew too familiar an acquaintance with the whole subject, to be the word of one who, living at a distance, merely described past events and gave an unbiassed judgment upon them. They lead irresistibly to the conclusion that the writer composed his work amid the people and the scenes to which he continually refers. Some persons have thought that the Book ends abruptly, and that the present is only a portion of a larger treatise which carried on the author's historical view of the operations of divine wisdom down to the latest times of the Jewish commonwealth. But if we consider that the author is writing in Egypt, and partly with the purpose of exposing the corruptions of its idol worship in contrast with the pure religion of the Israelites, it is seen at once that in bringing his comparison down to the time of the Exodus and the judgment executed on the gods of Egypt, he leaves his subject at the most appropriate conclusion, and that a survey of succeeding events, in which that country had no concern, would rather have diminished than increased the effect of the contrast. As we can assume Alexandria to be the birthplace of our Book, so by internal evidence we can approach the date of its production. Disregarding the fictitious name of Solomon adopted merely for literary purposes, we have two facts which limit the period during which it must have been composed. First, it contains evident traces of the use of the Septuagint version of the Scriptures, and must therefore have been written subsequently to that translation. Thus in ch. ii. 12 the ungodly are made to use the words of Isa. iii. 10: 1 Eichhorn, Einleit. in d. Apokryph.; Grotius, Annot. in libr. Apocryph. Other instances of reference to the Septuagint version are found in the following: vi. 7; xi. 4; xii. 8; xvi. 22; xix. 21. δήσωμιν [ἐνεδρεύσωμιν Wisd.] τὸν δίκαιον, ὅτι δύσχρηστος huîv éσT, where the Hebrew has something quite different; and in xv. Io the author writes σmodòs κapdía ʼn auroù, which is a quotation from the Septuagint of Isai. xliv. 20 where the variation from the Hebrew is remarkable. Now the Septuagint version was begun at least in the time of the earlier Ptolemies about B.C. 280, and was continued at various intervals. When it was concluded is quite uncertain, For our purpose it is enough to fix a date earlier than which Wisdom could not have been written, and this limit we may set at B. C. 200. The second limitation is derived from the fact that the Book contains no trace of distinctively Christian doctrine. The Incarnation, the Atonement, and the Resurrection of the body, find no place in its teaching. It is true that some commentators have satisfied themselves that there are passages which could only have come from a Christian hand, but as these are allowed by them to be interpolations, (though there is no evidence of the fact and the passages themselves are in accordance with the rest of the work), we may leave this opinion out of our consideration. But in addition to these data, there is another fact to be inferred from the treatise which defines the period during which it could have been composed. Its language in many places points to a time of oppression wholly inappropriate to the era of Solomon. Such statements as these: The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them' (iii. 1); Then shall the righteous man stand in great boldness before the face of such as have afflicted him' (v. 1); seem to be the utterances of one who was consoling himself and others under persecution and affliction. Hence the author inveighs against unrighteous rulers, and threatens them with heavy Noack, Der Ursprung des Christenthums, i. p. 222, ff.; Kirschbaum, Der Jüd. Alex. p. 52; Grotius, in Comm.; Grätz, Gesch. der Jud. iii. p. 495; Erasmus, De Ratione Concion. iii. (vol. v. p. 1049). judgment (vi. 5, 9); speaks of present sufferings and chastisements (xii. 22, 23); and connects these things with the diatribe against idolatry and the deification of man (xiv. etc.). Now under the earlier Ptolemies the Jews in Alexandria enjoyed the utmost peace and prosperity, had all the privileges of Macedonian citizens, were in high favour at court, and exercised their own peculiar worship without restraint1. Such too was their condition under the later kings down to the time of the Christian era. The only persecutions which they suffered took place in the reigns of Ptolemy Philopator (B. C. 221204), and Ptolemy VII or Physcon (B. C. 170-117). The sufferings of the Jews under the latter are mentioned by Josephus. They had their rise in the inhuman and sanguinary temper of the king, and extended not merely to the Hebrews, but to all the inhabitants, insomuch that the populace in general fled from the scene of blood, and the city was almost deserted. The only special persecution of the Jews in the period of which we are speaking was that which raged under Ptolemy Philopator. This monarch on his return from the defeat of Antiochus (B. C. 217) passed through Jerusalem, and being repulsed in an attempt to penetrate, against the High Priest's remonstrances, into the Most Holy Place of the Temple, conceived an implacable hatred for the Jews, and on his return to Egypt revenged himself for his humilia 1 Joseph. Ant. xii. 1; Contr. Ap. ii. 4. 2 Contr. Ap. ii. 5. See also Athenaeus, iv. p. 184; vi. p. 252, ed. Casaub.; Justin. Hist. xxxviii. 8, 9. 3 Thus Eusebius, quoting vi. 24, says: kaì Taûтa dé îŋ è¿ avtoû Xéyetai toû проσάпоν (i. e. personifying Solomon); Praep. Evang. vii. 12. (xxi. p. 544, Migne). 4 E.g. Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 11 (p. 786, Pott.), quoting xiv. 2, 3, says: ἔπειτα δὲ οὐκ ἀνέγνωσαν τὸ πρὸς τοῦ Σολομῶντος εἰρημένον, S. Cypr. Exh. Mart. xii.; Orig. Hom. in Jer. viii. (xiii. p. 337, M.) : φησὶν ἡ Σοφία ἡ ἐπιγεγραμμένη Σολομῶντος. So Holkot in his Commentary. Didymus attributes the book to Solomon, De Trin. ii. 6. (xxxix. p. 536, Μ.): ὡς Σολομῶν λέγει· φείδῃ δὲ πάντων, xi. 26; and De Spir. § 54, he refers to vii. 18, 20, as showing that Solomon knew 'violentias spirituum, rapidos ventorum flatus.' De Trin. i. 16. (xxxix. p. 337, Μ.): Σολομῶν γὰρ λέγει· ἀναλόγως τῶν tion by the most atrocious persecutions. It is thought that the highly coloured account in the third Book of Maccabees refers to this occurrence. But be that as it may, without any undue assumption, and leaving undecided the special tribulation to which the writer of Wisdom refers, we may safely date the production of the Book between B. C. 217 and B.C. 145, that is between the epoch marked by the religious oppression under Philopator, and that rendered memorable by the enormities of the bloated sensualist Physcon. If we come now to consider the question of the author of the Book, we are at once launched into a controversy which, with our present information, knows no possible settlement. It is easy to find objections to all the writers to whom the work has been attributed: to fix on a more probable name is beyond our power. We can here only very briefly indicate the line which this fruitless inquiry has taken. We have seen already that the name of Solomon was assumed by the author for literary purposes, but many in old time and some in later years 5 have contended for the Solomonic authorship. However, the language, the style, the development of doctrine, the local colouring, the quotations from the Septuagint, entirely preclude the notion of the writer being David's son. And as to the work being a translation from the Hebrew, or (as the critic who attributes it to Zerubbabel suggests,) the Chaldee, considerations have already KтIOμáтWV 8 Yev. Oewp., xiii. 5. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iv. 13, blames Clem. Alex. because in his Stromata he cites as Scripture 'some books which are impugned by many, ἀπὸ τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων Ypapav, as the Book of Wisdom which is attributed to Solomon, the epistles of Barnabas and Clement,' etc. Hippol. Rom. Demonstr. adv. Jud. p. 67. (ed. Lagarde): nádiv Zoλoμàv nepi Χριστοῦ καὶ Ἰουδαίων φησὶν ὅτι ὅτε στήσεται ὁ δίκαιος . . . πάντα is oká. Tertullian, De Praescript. 7, refers to a passage in Wisdom thus: 'Nostra institutio de porticu Salomonis est, qui et ipse tradiderat Dominum in simplicitate cordis esse quaerendum.' (i. 1). 5 Schmidt, Das Buch der Weisheit; Azariah de Rossi, Meor Enajim, p. 281 b. ed. 1829. Faber, Ap. Grimm, Einleit., pp. 8, 18. See Huetius, Demonstr. Evangel. p. 250, ed. 1722. been adduced which render this theory untenable. S. Jerome, in his Preface to the Books of Solomon1, asserts that some ancient writers consider the author to be Philo Judaeus; and many in later times have adopted this opinion, referring the persecutions of which the text gives intimations to the oppressive acts of the Romans, culminating in Caligula's attempt to erect his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem, which was the occasion of Philo's legation to the Emperor 2. But this idea fails to command assent on internal evidence, even if there were not many reasons already mentioned which render the date of that learned Jew inapplicable. Roman Catholics, who are bound by the decrees of the Council of Trent to believe in the inspiration of the Book of Wisdom, have a summary method of dismissing Philo's claim. Living at the time of our Lord he must be regarded as one of the unbelieving Jews, and to suppose such a man inspired by the Holy Spirit would be sacrilegious. Quis enim credat,' asks Corn. a Lapide, hominem Judaeum, jam abrogato Judaismo, infidelem et perfidum, esse auctorem libri canonici et sacri? But without adopting this very formidable argument, there are such great differences in style, in doctrine, in treatment, that we cannot for a moment acquiesce in the theory which identifies Philo with the author of the Book of Wisdom. Leaving the question of style, which is a matter more to be felt by readers than discussed on paper, we will notice a few discrepancies which are found in these two writers. In Wisdom the serpent who tempted Eve is identified with the devil; but Philo ignores that evil power, and terms the serpent a symbol of pleasure, which speaks 1 'Nonnulli Scriptorum veterum hunc esse Judaei Philonis affirmant.' This opinion has been maintained by Lyranus, Postill.; Luther, in the introduction to his translation of the Book; Cosin, Hist. of the Canon; and many others. See an ingenious conjecture by Dr. Tregelles in reference to a corrupt passage of the Muratorian Canon, where the Latin text reads, Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis scripta,' and which he imagines may have been in the original ὑπὸ Φίλωνος instead of ὑπὸ Φίλων ; Journal of Philol., 1855, p. 37. with seductive voice to men, and draws them away from temperance and obedience to law. In the same way the latter interprets the Brazen Serpent as oppoσύνη οι καρτερία : in Wisdom the matter is treated in its plain historical sense 5. And in general the treatment of Scriptural narratives by the two authors presents a very marked contrast, Philo always straining after spiritual, anagogical, recondite interpretations, and losing the reality of the history in the fanciful lessons evolved from it, the author of Wisdom taking the facts as they stand and meditating religiously upon them, with no attempt to explain away their obvious meaning. It would be entirely alien to the method and treatment of the latter to introduce the Pythagorean doctrine of numbers in speaking of the six days of creation, as Philo does, or to resolve the four rivers of Paradise into the four cardinal virtues 7, or to explain the manna as God's word. Philo scarcely ever refers to the Psalms and Prophets; in Wisdom the allusions to these writings and especially to Isaiah are numerous and important. In his desire to maintain the absolute perfection of God, and looking on matter as the source of evil, Philo conceives the Logos as the mediate cause of the world, assisted by other powers, angels and demons. The Book of Wisdom enters into none of these abstruse speculations, and is satisfied with the avowal that God made all things by His word (ix. 1). Where, if he held the opinion, the author might naturally have introduced the doctrine of ideas, which forms so prominent a feature in Philo's philosophy, we find no trace of the The Egyptian darkness is said in Wisdom (xvii. 14) to have come upon them out of the bottoms same. 4 Chap. ii. 24; Philo, De Mund. Opif. 56. (i. p. 38); De Agric. 22. (i. p. 315). Wisd. xvi. 5, 7; Philo, Leg. Alleg. ii. 20; De Agric. 22. 7 Philo, De Poster. Caini 37. (i. p. 250). F |