CHAPTER XI

The Wisdom Literature; the Jewish Conception of Wisdom

[LITERATURE.—Cheyne, _Job and Solomon, or The Wisdom of the Old Testament_ (1887); Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, ii. pp. 292-309 (1888); Driver, _An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_, pp. 337-449 (1891); Toy, _Judaism and Christianity_, pp. 52-76 (1891); Cornill, _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_, pp. 216-279 (1896); Toy, _The Book of Proverbs_ (1899); Friedländer, _Griechische Philosophie in Alten Testament_ (1904); Briggs, _The Book of Psalms_ (1906); Barton, _The Book of Ecclesiastes_ (1908); Meinhold, _Die Weisheit Israels in Spruch, Sage und Dichtung_ (1908); Gregg, _The Wisdom of Solomon_ (1909); Oesterley, _The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus_ (1912); Oesterley and Box, _The Wisdom of Ben-Sira_, and Holmes, _The Wisdom of Solomon_, in Charles’ “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament” (1913); Goodrick, _The Book of Wisdom_ (1913).]

I. THE WISDOM LITERATURE

The Wisdom Literature of the Jews which has come down to us comprises both canonical and uncanonical books[300]; but the distinction may be ignored, for all the books which belong to this Literature, though each has its particular characteristics, are clearly members of one family; they are all alike in possessing one outstanding and typical mark of differentiation from the rest of the Old Testament books, viz., in them religion has become philosophy. It was not, of course, philosophy in the Greek, any more than in the modern, sense of the word; “the wise men of Israel never approached their inquiries without theological presuppositions; they had no desire to investigate final causes; they started from a fundamental axiom, ‘In the beginning was God ...’; this postulate indicates the character of their studies, which were not so much speculative as practical: their desire was not so much to understand the works of God, as to acquaint themselves with their harmonies, beauties, and adaptations, and all this with the final object of knowing and doing the will of God.”[301] But while the fundamental Jewish monotheistic belief is taken for granted throughout the Wisdom Literature, the latter has other characteristics which are not wholly in accord with traditional Judaism. That the various writers differ in their teaching from each other, and that the same writer is not always consistent in his teaching, is not a cause for surprise; these men had entered upon new ways of thinking, and were grappling with new subjects of thought; it was natural that their speculations should sometimes be only tentative; they had, moreover, come into contact with new influences which would have affected one more than another. It must also be remembered that some of the books belonging to this literature, notably Proverbs and Job, are of composite authorship, and that possibly the component parts belong to different periods; so that what may sometimes appear contradictory in one writing in reality represents some development of thought belonging to a later writer. But however this may be, we certainly find in the Wisdom Literature positions taken up which show to some extent a departure from traditional Judaism. The wise men present a very interesting combination in that they are at once universalistic and conservative. We find in the Wisdom Literature but little stress laid on national institutions and laws, such, for example, as the sacrificial system; it is recognized, it is true, but rather because it is thought right to keep up the old customs than that there is any intrinsic value or permanent necessity in the system. In like manner the Messianic expectations receive very scanty recognition. The attitude of the sages towards the Gentiles is generally friendly; they recognized the higher culture, in many respects, of these nations, and were therefore willing to learn from them; not infrequently we find, for example, that the God of the Jews is declared to be the God of all men. But the most striking characteristic, which is quite un-Jewish, is the conception of the God-like _Sophia_, which is conceived of as a creative divine power existing before the creation of the world; “this hypostatization of Wisdom,” says Friedländer, “is here a downright sacrilege; it betrays the violent entry of an alien spirit into the domain of Judaism, and even the fine way in which the essence of the divine Wisdom is described cannot for a moment blind us to the act of violence perpetrated by the forcible intrusion of Greek conceptions into the atmosphere of the old Hebrew idea of Wisdom.”[302] But as we deal in section III of this chapter with the conception of Wisdom as portrayed in all the books of the Wisdom Literature, it will not be necessary to say anything on this subject here.

II. THE ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW CONCEPTION OF WISDOM

There is a great difference between the conception of Wisdom which is presented in the literature of Israel prior to the captivity and that which meets us in the Wisdom Literature proper; yet there is no sort of doubt that the latter represents the full growth of a plant whose seed can be clearly seen in the early writings of the Old Testament. This is, however, only part of the truth; for while it is true to say that the religious-intellectual _spirit_ to which the Wisdom Literature of the Jews owed its existence was of indigenous growth, it is no less true to say that the elements which contributed to the production of that Literature were not exclusively Jewish. We shall try to show presently that Babylonian influence was, in part, at work in helping the sages of Israel both before the captivity, as well as in post-exilic times, to frame their ideas on Wisdom as these appear in the Wisdom Literature, while still later the influence of the Greek spirit is to be clearly discerned. But our first task must be to seek the first beginnings of Wisdom in the earlier books of the Old Testament.

When precisely ideas about Wisdom began to manifest themselves in Israel it would be impossible to say, but the germs from which, centuries after, the Wisdom Literature grew were already in existence during the early days of the Monarchy, for the tradition of Solomon’s wisdom is undoubtedly based upon fact. In 1 Kings iv. 30-34 (verses 10-14 in the Hebrew) it is said: “And Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men.... And he spake three thousand proverbs; and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees.... And there came of all peoples to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all the kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.”[303] Even allowing for some exaggeration, which is so natural to an oriental writer, there can be little doubt that this passage is based upon actual fact, though what is meant by Wisdom in this and similar passages was very different from what would now be understood by that term, as we shall see. But Solomon was not the first example of a “wise man” in Israel. The earliest form of Wisdom is represented by what the Hebrews called a _māshāl_; this is usually translated by “proverb,” but it has, in addition to this, a much wider signification, for it is used of a prophetic figurative discourse, such as those uttered by Balaam; in later times it was also used to describe a parable and an allegory; in this sense it occurs in Ezekiel. In its earlier simple sense a _māshāl_ meant a “proverb,” not necessarily of a religious, or even ethical, content; it expressed some general truth brought home to men by the observance of the ordinary experiences of life. One of the very simplest of these found in the Old Testament is: “Out of the wicked cometh forth wickedness” (1 Sam. xxiv. 13); this is said to be “a proverb of the ancients,” which shows that it must have long been in use among the Israelites. In 2 Samuel xx. 18 another proverb, which seems likewise to have been long current among the people, is preserved: “They were wont to speak in old time, saying, ‘They shall surely ask counsel at Abel’”; this was uttered by a “wise woman.” With deeper observation and reflection more subtle thoughts came to be expressed in this form. “The Israelites, like all other peoples, must have reflected more or less, from the moment when they attained a settled civilization, on general questions of life. The lowest form of such reflection appears in popular proverbs and fables, which express, usually in a one-sided and superficial way, the result of the ordinary common-sense experience and observation.”[304] As a general rule, however, the few examples of proverbs which we find in the earlier books of the Old Testament reflect a relatively somewhat advanced type, and what is especially interesting about them is that they appear not infrequently to have been made on the spur of the moment; this is the case with the proverb in 1 Samuel x. 12: “Is Saul among the prophets?” which is said to have “become a proverb.” Another saying the form and rhythm of which marks it out as a proverb is: “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house” (2 Sam. v. 8, R.V. marg.); the fact that this is prefaced by the words, “Wherefore they say,” also points to its having been a popular proverb. These, and similar proverbs, though originally composed in reference to some particular occurrence, became applicable in course of time in a more general way. The proverb, for example, “Is Saul among the prophets?” might be described as the _converse_ of the modern proverb: “Birds of a feather flock together”; or, again, the proverb: “They shall surely ask counsel at Abel,” may well have become a popular way of expressing the truth that if you want guidance you must seek it at the right quarter. A later and more advanced type of proverb is uttered by the prophet Hosea (viii. 7): “They sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind”; another is quoted in Jeremiah xxxi. 29 and Ezekiel xviii. 2 in the words: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”

The simplest form of proverb was thus the earliest type of “Wisdom” among the Israelites, as it was among other peoples. But the content of a proverb easily lent itself, in the minds of the more reflective, to expansion, and thus by degrees were formed fables and parables whereby truths were illustrated and brought home to the minds of men. One of the earliest fables—the exact application of which in its present context is not quite easy to determine—is preserved in Judges ix. 8-15:

Once upon a time the trees went forth to anoint over them a king; And they said to the olive: “Rule thou over us.” And the olive said to them: “Should I give up my fatness wherewith they honour gods and men, And go and wave over the trees!” Then said the trees to the fig-tree: “Come thou, be king over us.” And the fig-tree said to them: “Should I give up my sweetness and my good fruit, And go and wave over the trees!” Then said the trees to the vine: “Come thou, be king over us.” And the vine said unto them: “Should I give up my wine that cheereth gods and men, And go and wave over the trees!” Then said all the trees to the thorn-bush: “Come thou, be king over us.” And the thorn-bush said to the trees: “If truly ye anoint me as king over you, Then come, trust to my shadow; but if not, then may fire come forth from the thorn-bush, And devour the cedars of Lebanon!”

We have attempted to translate this in the poetical form of the original Hebrew; it will be seen that the thought-structure is very simple, so that the ideas conveyed would be easily apprehended by the common people to which the fable was addressed. Another fable, the only other one preserved in the Old Testament, occurs in 2 Kings xiv. 9: “The bramble that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, ‘Give thy daughter to my son to wife’; and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon and trod down the bramble.” But it is in the early Old Testament _parables_ that the highest form of “Wisdom” in pre-exilic Israel is reached. As in the case of fables, only two parables are preserved; they differ from fables in two important particulars: in that only men are represented as taking part and speaking, and that the content of a parable, so far as we are able to judge from the specimens preserved, is _religious_; this is a large step forward in approximation to the later Jewish conception of Wisdom. The earliest Old Testament parable occurs in 2 Samuel xii. 1-4, Nathan’s parable of the ewe-lamb; it is sufficiently well known, and need not be quoted. The other is Isaiah’s parable of the vineyard in Isaiah v. 1-4, which is written in poetry, while the former is in prose. We may add here one other form of Wisdom, found mainly in Ezekiel, namely the _allegory_; this is also called a _māshāl_, but this word is here used in an extended sense, for the allegory, though a parable in form, presents a symbolical picture the meaning of which is not, like the parable, easily grasped, but demands some thought before it can be properly understood; it is therefore sometimes called a “riddle.” It differs in another respect from the parable, for symbols take the place of persons; but, like the parable, the Old Testament allegory has a religious signification. Among the most striking allegories are: the allegory of the great eagles (Ezek. xvii. 3-8), the allegory of the caldron (Ezek. xxiv. 3-5), and the allegory of the valley full of dry bones (Ezek. xxxvii. 1-10); but there are a considerable number of others.

The examples of “Wisdom” which have so far been given form an important element in the antecedents of the Wisdom literature; but that this element was not exclusively Israelite is implied in the Old Testament itself, for in a passage already quoted (1 Kings iv. 30, [verse 10 in Hebrew]) it is said: “And Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt.” As in so many other respects, so, too, in the domain of Wisdom, Babylon and Egypt evidently exercised considerable influence over the Israelites[305]; and if this was so in pre-exilic times, much more will it have been the case—at any rate as far as Babylon was concerned—when a large portion, especially of the cultured classes, of the nation was brought into immediate contact with Babylonian thought during the exile. The following may be given as an example of the way in which the Babylonian conception of Wisdom influenced the Jews. According to the Babylonian cosmology, Wisdom dwelt in the depths of the sea with Ea, the creative deity. Apsu, “the deep,” is called “the house of Wisdom” because out of it came forth the Wisdom of Ea, and the word of Ea; one of the epithets applied to the god Ea is “lord of Wisdom.”[306] This conception of the “deep” being the home of Wisdom is reflected in the Wisdom Literature of the Jews; in Psalms xxxvi. 6 it is said:

Thy judgements are a great deep,

the original is more forcible, for literally it runs:

Thy judgements are Tehom Rabbah,

which is the ancient proper name for the ocean. So, too, in Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 5, Wisdom says:

Alone I compassed the circuit of heaven, And in the depth of the abyss I walked.[307]

Moreover, the fundamental conception of Wisdom in the Wisdom Literature (of which we shall speak presently) is its inseparable connection with God; the deeper insight of the Jewish sages saw some truth in the Babylonian conception of the origin of Wisdom, that it dwelt in the depth of the sea with the “Lord of Wisdom,” i.e. was in close touch with the creative deity, so they adopted the conception and placed it in a truer perspective.[308] What Kohler[309] says in a somewhat different connection is applicable here: “As soon as monotheism was firmly established as a result of the labours of the prophets, the wisdom of the east could be consulted by Israel’s sages, and questions concerning the origin of all things could be answered, in both poetry and prose, far more intelligently than had been possible for the ancient Babylonians.”

The origin of Wisdom is thus to be sought partly in Israel itself, and partly in certain ideas which were adopted from extraneous sources. But the way in which the Jewish sages of post-exilic times developed both the indigenous as well as the foreign elements is extremely instructive; to this we must now devote some attention.

III. THE JEWISH CONCEPTION OF WISDOM

Our chief concern is the conception of Wisdom as portrayed in the Wisdom Literature; but it will be well to say just a word as to how Wisdom was conceived of in the earlier literature, if only to show the immense development of thought on the subject which took place after the Exile. Wisdom (in Hebrew, _Chokmah_), and wise men (in Hebrew, _Chakāmîm_) are fairly frequently mentioned in the Pentateuch, and in the prophetical as well as in the historical books; the words connote in general skill in doing anything, whether in reference to artisans, or goldsmiths, or sailors, or mourning women, or of the shrewdness of the astrologer or the magician. In a higher sense it is used of wisdom in the administration of affairs; in a few instances, as in Hosea xiv. 10, a man is called wise who is far-seeing in religious things (cp. also Deut. iv. 6, Isa. xi. 2). That the prophets rarely refer to the subject of Wisdom is natural enough; it was not their function; they were called forth to rebuke and exhort in the words and after the manner of preachers; they appealed rather to the heart, to the emotions, to the conscience, than to the intellect. Sometimes, it is true, we find that “wise men” are spoken of as a class; thus Jeremiah witnesses to the fact that already in his day the _Chakam_ (“wise man”) occupied a recognized position side by side with the priest and the prophet: “For the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet” (Jer. xviii. 18).

Turning now to consider the various conceptions of Wisdom as portrayed in the Wisdom Literature, we may begin with the well-known words: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.” This saying was to the Jewish sages probably the most important of any that was uttered on the subject; it occurs in Job xxviii. 28 in the form: “Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom.” In its more familiar form it appears in Psalms cxi. 6, Proverbs i. 7, ix. 10 (cp. xv. 33), Ecclesiasticus i. 14 (cp. i. 15, 20, 27), and the sense of the words occurs very often besides. But it is worth pointing out that the meaning of the phrase is not that the fear of the Lord is the commencement of Wisdom, but rather the “end” of it; it is true that the Hebrew word used, _rôsh_ (lit. “head”), has also the sense of “beginning”; but here it is “zenith” that is meant; the highest and most perfect form of Wisdom is the fear of the Lord; so that one might quite correctly render: “The fear of the Lord is the end of Wisdom.”

In the Wisdom Literature generally Wisdom is never used in the sense of pure knowledge; in its earliest meaning it connoted the faculty of distinguishing between what was useful or beneficent, and what was harmful; later, more ethically, between what was good and what was bad. In the Wisdom Literature there is always at bottom a _religious_ content in Wisdom; that is to say, it is a divinely bestowed gift the possession of which makes man in some measure like God. To be able to distinguish truly between good and evil is the means whereby man is enabled to stand in close relationship with God. But since the faculty to distinguish between good and evil is a divine endowment, every form of Wisdom comes from God, so that although the knowledge and fear of the Lord is the highest type of Wisdom, there are less exalted forms of it which are also regarded as part of the one great gift of God; that is to say, what is called worldly wisdom does not differ in kind, but only in degree from the higher form. In Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus, which belong closely together, and which are the chief exponents of this worldly wisdom, moral precepts form the main topics; and though widely different from divine Wisdom, both emanate from the same source, and are ultimately to be traced back to the Giver of all good things.

But the particular conception of Wisdom which is of far-reaching importance is that of personification which is attributed to it in the Wisdom Literature. As a general rule Wisdom is spoken of as something abstract; but in some very striking passages it is personified. Before proceeding to illustrate this it is necessary to utter a note of warning against exaggeration in two opposite directions; on the one hand, we are not justified in reading into the words which speak of the personification of Wisdom a meaning which they were not intended to bear; still less, on the other hand, are we justified in explaining away altogether the meaning which those words _were_ intended to bear. When, nowadays, we speak of things, whether abstract or concrete, as personalities the words are used metaphorically without the remotest intention of really imputing personality to the things described; but we must guard against the danger of assuming that our modern way of envisaging things can be paralleled by that of two thousand years ago; the _mode of expression_ may not have greatly changed, but the _way of conceiving_ is totally different. When, among the Jewish sages of old, Wisdom was personified, it was conceived of, according to a modern writer on the subject, as a “projection out of the Divine mind, as something more than an attribute, but as something less than a hypostasis; ‘a little more than kin, and less than kind.’”[310] This is true as far as it goes; but the words of the Jewish sages, as we shall see, lead one to believe that in their conception of Wisdom they went even further than this; one may go so far as to say that Wisdom was thought of as an intermediate being between God and the world, a personality existing alongside of God, but separate from Him. This is more or less parallel to some other personifications, or quasi-personifications, of certain attributes proper to God which appear in early post-Christian Jewish writings; these occupy an intermediate position between personalities and abstract beings. While, on the one hand, they are represented as being so closely connected with God as to appear as parts of Him, or attributes, they are, on the other hand, so often spoken of as undertaking individual action that they must be regarded in a real sense as separate from Him.[311]

The special importance of this conception of the hypostasis of Wisdom lies not only in the fact that it forms the link between the Palestinian and Hellenistic development of Judaism, but also that it represents the contribution made by the Wisdom Literature to the Christology of the Old Testament, and has, moreover, greatly influenced Christian theology.[312]

What has been said must now be illustrated from the books of the Wisdom Literature.

In the earlier portions of Proverbs, Wisdom is always an abstract thing; the only passage in which one might conceivably discern a tendency to something different would be xxii. 24:

Wisdom is before the face of him that hath understanding;

but it is doubtful whether this means more than that when a man has sought Wisdom and has found it, Wisdom may be said to be “before his face,” i.e., it is the man who has understanding before whose face (mental vision) Wisdom appears, because he has sought her. It is in what is pretty generally regarded as the latest portion of the book (viz. i.-ix., belonging to the third century B.C. _circa_) that a real personification of Wisdom is found; the whole of chapter viii. is a speech uttered by Wisdom; much of it is undoubtedly figurative, but the section viii. 22-31 evidently represents something more than figurative language; it is too long to give in full, but a few of the verses must be given in order to illustrate what has been said:

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; When there were no fountains abounding with water.... When he established the heavens I was there; When he set a circle upon the face of the deep; When he made firm the skies above; When the fountains of the deep became strong; When he gave to the sea its bound, That the waters should not transgress his commandment; When he marked out the foundations of the earth; Then was I by him, as a master workman....

With the thought of Wisdom being utilized by God in creating the world (“Then was I by him, as a master workman”), one must compare the thought of God having created the world by means of His _Word_; this thought is already adumbrated in such a passage as Psalms xxxiii. 6: “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made”[313]; these words were, at any rate, interpreted in later times to mean that the whole of the Creation, as described in Genesis i., was accomplished by means of the Word of God, “Word,” or _Memra_, having become, in the meantime, a quasi-personality like Wisdom. This development may be seen at work in the Wisdom Literature; for example, in Ecclesiasticus xlii. 15 it is said: “By the Word of God (are) His works,” i.e. were His works created; the context shows that it is the works of the Creation which are referred to. In Wisdom iv. 1 we have the same thought: “O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, Who hast made all things by Thy Word, and by Thy wisdom didst form man ...”; and, much later, in 2 (4) Esdras vi. 38, it is said again: “Thy Word was (i.e. made) a perfect work,” where the reference is to the first day of Creation. We are here irresistibly led to think of the opening words of the fourth Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that hath been made” (John i. 1-3). It is very striking to notice here how Christian truth was adumbrated in pre-Christian times.

In the Book of Job, as everywhere in the Wisdom Literature, Wisdom is of divine origin, e.g. xi. 5, 6:

But oh that God would speak, And open His lips against thee; And that He would show thee the secrets of Wisdom, For sound wisdom is manifold (cp. xv. 8).

As a general rule the wisdom spoken of in this book is that of experience; but in one striking passage there is a definite personification of Wisdom, viz. xxviii. 12-28; it begins with the question: “Where shall Wisdom be found?” And after its priceless value has been described, the writer continues (verses 23 ff.):

God understandeth the way thereof, And He knoweth the place thereof ... When He made a decree for the rain, And a way for the lightning of the thunder: Then did He see it, and declare it; He established it, yea, and searched it out....

But in this book where problems of great perplexity are treated, there is less scope than in the other Wisdom books for dealing specifically with Wisdom.

In Ecclesiastes (B.C. 200) Wisdom, as one would naturally expect, is always something abstract; but in this book, with its terribly pessimistic tone, we come across a phenomenon which is found nowhere else in the Wisdom literature; the Preacher’s pessimism is seen to affect even his estimate of Wisdom; what, for example, could be more dismal than this?

And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven; it is a sore travail that God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised therewith.... I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I have gotten me great wisdom above all that were before me in Jerusalem; yea, my heart hath had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. And I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly; I perceived that this also was a striving after wind. For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth grief (i. 13-18).

This forlorn writer, furthermore, seems sometimes to approach the subject in an entirely perverse spirit; he says later:

I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness. The wise man’s eyes are in his head, and the fool walketh in darkness; and yet I perceived that one event happeneth to them all. Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so will it happen even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also was vanity. For of the wise man, even as of the fool, there is no remembrance for ever; seeing that in the days to come all will have been already forgotten. And how doth the wise man die even as the fool (ii. 13-16).

This same spirit is manifested in the little parable in ix. 13-16:

... There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it. Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man. Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength; nevertheless the poor man’s wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard.

We can only say that such an attitude is deplorable; the writer seems to think that unless Wisdom is recognized and the wise man rewarded, it is vanity! That is quite different from the usual attitude of the authors of the Wisdom Literature, who esteem and love Wisdom for its own sake. There are, it is true, a few passages in this book which witness to a better appreciation of Wisdom; for example, in vii. 11, 12 it is said:

Wisdom is as good as an inheritance; yea, more excellent is it for them that see the sun. For Wisdom is a defence, even as money is a defence; but the excellency of knowledge is that Wisdom preserveth the life of him that hath it.

Or again in viii. 1:

A man’s wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the hardness of his face is changed.

So that, in spite of what he says elsewhere, the Preacher has an innate liking for Wisdom; as a recent commentator on the book says, “he admires it, and at times follows it (i. 13, vii. 25, ix. 16); but, on the other hand, he cannot rid himself of the feeling that the wise man toils in vain (ix. 16), that his labour is a fruitless endeavour, and that a child born dead is in reality happier than the wise man (vi. 3-8). It is true that in another mood he declares that it is better to know that one will die than to know nothing (ix. 5); but, on the whole, his verdict is that Wisdom, like all other things mundane, is vanity. The wise man has no real advantage, except that he suffers with his eyes open; in the end he dies like a fool, and goes to the same place (ix. 1 ff.).”[314]

In the Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus) all that is taught concerning Wisdom in the earlier books (with the exception of what is peculiar to Ecclesiastes) finds full expression, though Ben-Sira is not a slavish imitator; he has his own ideas, and amplifies the earlier teaching, always making it his own before giving expression to it. The divine origin of Wisdom is shown by teaching that it is a direct emanation from God:

All Wisdom cometh from the Lord And is with Him for ever (i. 1).

I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, And as a mist I covered the earth (xxiv. 3).

The existence of Wisdom before the creation of world is definitely stated in the words:

Before them all (i.e. the heavens and the earth) was Wisdom created (i. 4).

He created me from the beginning, before the world (xxiv. 9).

It is especially characteristic of Ben-Sira’s teaching that he identifies the Law with Wisdom; this identification is often taken for granted, while in several passages it is categorically set forth. “Ben-Sira inculcates the truth that the way to lead a wise life is to live according to the divine commandments, and acting accordingly, man makes his human wisdom approximate to the divine, and worldly, practical wisdom, in its many and various forms, is thus of the same kind, only less in degree, as divine wisdom. It is thus easy to see that the identification between the Law and Wisdom was inevitable.”[315] This identification is to be seen in such passages as the following:

For he that feareth the Lord doeth this (i.e. seeketh Wisdom), And he that taketh hold of the Law findeth her (xv. 1).

He that keepeth the Law controlleth his natural tendency, And the fear of the Lord is the consummation of Wisdom (xxi. 11).

The most direct assertion, however, of this identity between the Law and Wisdom is found in xxiv. 23, 25:

All these things (i.e. the things concerning Wisdom) are in the book of the covenant of God Most High, The Law which Moses commanded as an heritage for the assemblies of Jacob, Which filleth men with Wisdom, like Pison, And like Tigris in the days of new fruits....

And again in xix. 20:

All Wisdom is the fear of the Lord, And all Wisdom is the fulfilling of the Law.

Although Wisdom is the free gift of God,

Without measure doth He grant her to them that love Him (i. 26),

yet man is not able to utilize it without earnest effort; he has an irksome discipline to go through which will test his sincerity:

But I will walk with him in disguise, And at first I will try him with temptations. Fear and dread will I bring upon him, And I will torment him with chastisements (iv. 17);

but to the persevering the reward is great; this Ben-Sira expresses in a passage full of poetical beauty:

For at length thou wilt find her rest, And she shall be turned for thee into gladness. And her fetters shall become a stay of strength for thee, And her bands for robes of glory. An ornament of gold is her yoke, And her fetters a cord of blue. Thou shalt array thee with her as with robes of glory, And crown thee with her as with a crown of beauty (vi. 28-31).

It will have been noticed that in several of the passages just quoted the personification of Wisdom is graphically expressed; there are many others in this book in which this is taught[316]; an interesting one is i. 15, where Wisdom is described in taking up her abode among men:

With faithful men is she, and she hath been established from eternity, And with their seed shall she continue.

In another passage Wisdom invites men to come and abide with her:

Come unto me, ye that desire me, And be ye filled with my produce; For my memorial is sweeter than honey, And the possession of me than the honey-comb (xxiv. 19, 20).

This thought of Wisdom abiding among men is illustrated in another way; Ben-Sira, in desiring to show the superiority of the wisdom of Israel over that of the Greeks, represents Wisdom as having sought a resting-place among the nations of the world, but found that none were worthy of her; thereupon God commanded her to abide in Israel where she would find a permanent home:

With all these (i.e. every people and nation) I sought a resting-place, And said: “In whose inheritance shall I lodge?” Then the Creator of all things gave me commandment, And He that created me fixed my dwelling-place for me; And He said: “Let thy dwelling-place be in Jacob, And in Israel take up thine inheritance....” And I took root among an honoured people, In the portion of the Lord and of His inheritance (xxiv. 7-12).

In his teaching concerning the personification of Wisdom Ben-Sira offers something that is of a transitional character; in the main, he bases his teaching on Proverbs, though he shows some advance upon this; but he falls far behind what the Book of Wisdom has to say on the subject. To this we must now devote some attention.

The writer of the Book of Wisdom, like the writers of all the books belonging to this literature, teaches the divine origin of Wisdom; but he has his own way of expressing this truth:

For she is a breath of the power of God, And a clear effluence of the glory of the Almighty; Therefore can nothing defiled find entrance into her. For she is an effulgence from everlasting light, And an unspotted mirror of the working of God, And an image of His goodness (vii. 25, 26).

This divine Wisdom is so indispensable to man that he is of no account without it:

For even if a man be perfect among the sons of men, Yet if the Wisdom that cometh from Thee be not with him, he shall be held in no account (ix. 6).

Another invariable doctrine in the Wisdom books, namely the existence of Wisdom before the world was created, and her part in the Creation, is taught thus:

And with Thee is Wisdom, which knoweth Thy works, And was present when Thou wast making the world (ix. 9).

For she is initiated into the knowledge of God, And she chooseth out for Him His works (viii. 4).

Ben-Sira, as we saw, identifies the Law with Wisdom; the Jewish-Hellenistic writer of the Book of Wisdom does not do so, but he teaches an identification between the Holy Spirit of the Lord and Wisdom[317]; this is clear from the following passage:

Because Wisdom will not enter into a soul that deviseth evil, Nor dwell in a body that is held in pledge by sin; For a holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit ... For Wisdom is a spirit that loveth man, And she will not hold a blasphemer guiltless for his lips ... Because the spirit of the Lord hath filled the world (i. 4-7).

Still more pointed are the words in ix. 17:

And who ever gained knowledge of Thy counsel, except Thou gavest Wisdom, And sentest Thy Holy Spirit from on high?

Further, Wisdom is identified with the Word of the Lord; the “Word” is, however, used in the Old Testament sense, not in that of the Philonian Logos. The Word, like Wisdom, takes part in the Creation:

O God of the fathers, and Lord Who keepest Thy mercy, Who madest all things by Thy Word; And by Thy Wisdom Thou formedst man.... (ix. 1, 2).

Just as Wisdom sits upon the throne of God:

Give me Wisdom, her that sitteth by Thee on Thy throne (ix. 4),

so, too, the same is said of the Word:

Thine all-powerful Word leaped from heaven out of the royal throne (xviii. 15).

The nature of Wisdom, as portrayed in this book, has been well summed up in the following words: “Wisdom is not an attribute, nor the sum of the attributes, of God: such an explanation would not take account of all the properties postulated of Wisdom, nor would it allow for the completeness of the Divine transcendence. Wisdom, again, is not God in manifestation; she is too distinct from Him to be merely a theoretical aspect of Himself. Lastly, she is not a Being, personal and distinct from God: she emanates from Him, but the emanation has not terminated. No birth-severance has taken place, giving her independent life.”[318]

Finally, it will not be amiss to take a glance, though it be but a very slight one, at the teaching concerning Wisdom which is given in some of the Apocalyptic books of which mention has been made in the preceding chapter. It is true, these books do not belong to the Wisdom Literature, nevertheless some of them contain teaching on the subject of Wisdom which may appropriately find a brief consideration here. We have already seen that in some of the earlier books of the Old Testament materials are to be discerned out of which the Wisdom Literature developed; as there were, therefore, these early seeds out of which the Wisdom Literature grew, so in some of the Apocalyptic books an after-growth may also be discerned. While the full fruit is to be seen in the books with which we have just been concerned, it is well to realize that some fruit is also to be gathered outside of these. It will be sufficient for our purpose if we illustrate what has to be said from three Apocalyptic books, viz. the Book of Enoch, the Similitudes of Enoch and the Secrets of Enoch.

In the oldest portions of the Book of Enoch there is no mention of Wisdom,[319] unless xci. 10 be included among these.[320] This passage runs:

And the righteous shall arise from their sleep, And Wisdom shall arise and be given unto them.

In the next oldest part, the “Dream Visions,” the thought which has already come before us of Wisdom sitting on the throne of God, finds expression:

Wisdom departs not from the place of Thy throne, Nor turns away from Thy presence (lxxxiv. 3).

But it is in the “Similitudes” that we find a number of passages dealing with the subject; in fact, all these “Similitudes,” or “Parables,” are declared to be the outcome of the Wisdom which the Lord of Spirits granted to Enoch (see xxxvii. 1-4, and cp. lxxxii. 2, 3). Differing from the teaching of earlier Wisdom books[321] it is here stated that Wisdom could nowhere find a dwelling-place among men, and had therefore to return to heaven (cp. the passage just quoted):

Wisdom found no place where she might dwell; Then a dwelling-place was assigned her in the heavens. Wisdom went forth to make her dwelling among the children of men, But found no dwelling-place; Wisdom returned to her place, And took her seat among the angels (xlii. 1, 2; cp. xciv. 5).

It is the Elect One, sitting on the throne of God, Who possesses all the secrets of Wisdom:

And the Elect One shall in those days sit on my Throne, And his mouth shall pour forth all the secrets of wisdom and counsel: For the Lord of Spirits hath given them to him, and hath glorified him (li. 3; cp. xlix. 3).

The blessedness of those who accept Wisdom is described in xcix. 10.

In the Book of the Secrets of Enoch there is at least one passage in which Wisdom is personified; it is a very curious one repeating with strange details the thought that Wisdom, as taught in earlier books, took her part in the Creation; the words are put into the mouth of the Creator:

On the sixth day I ordered my Wisdom to make man of seven substances: his flesh from the earth; his blood from the dew; his eyes from the sun; his bones from the stones; his thoughts from the swiftness of the angels, and the clouds; his veins [or “nails”] and hair from the grass of the earth; his spirit from my spirit, and from the wind (xxx. 8).

But in other passages, e.g. xxxiii. 3, xliii. 2, Wisdom is conceived of as purely abstract.

SUMMARY

The Wisdom Literature is preserved in both canonical and uncanonical books; but the distinction is here unimportant, for those belonging to either category are clearly members of the same family; they all possess one characteristic distinguishing them from the rest of the Old Testament, viz. in them religion has become philosophy. Not philosophy in the Greek sense, nor yet in that of the moderns, but still religious philosophy of a distinct type. The fundamental Jewish monotheistic belief is taken for granted throughout. There are, however, other characteristics not altogether in accord with traditional Judaism. The writers of the Wisdom Literature are not always consistent with one another, or even with themselves, and their speculations are often only tentative. This is not surprising, for they were struggling with new ways of thinking and with new subjects of thought; and they were, moreover, coming into contact with new influences.

In the Wisdom Literature certain positions taken up show some variance with tradition; thus, the wise men present a very interesting combination of universalism and conservatism; little stress is laid on national institutions and laws such as the sacrificial system; in like manner the Messianic expectation receives very scant recognition. The attitude towards the Gentiles is generally friendly; their higher culture is recognized, and there is willingness to learn from them. Not infrequently the God of the Jews is declared to be the God of all men. Most striking is the conception, which is quite un-Jewish, of the divine _Sophia_ which is conceived of as a creative power existing before the Creation.

There is a great difference between the conceptions of Wisdom in pre-exilic writings, and those of the Wisdom Literature proper; but without doubt the former contain the seeds whose growth is seen in the latter. Yet while it is true that the religious-intellectual spirit to which the Wisdom Literature owed its existence was an indigenous plant, yet the elements which contributed to its development were not exclusively Jewish. Babylonian influence was at work before, as well as during, the Captivity, and Greek influence is to be discerned later.

It is not possible to say when ideas about Wisdom began to manifest themselves in Israel. The earliest form of Wisdom is presented by what the Hebrews called a _māshāl_, usually translated “proverb,” but having a wider signification, being used of a prophetic figurative discourse such as was uttered by Balaam, or a parable or allegory of the kind found in the Book of Ezekiel. In its earlier use, however, _māshāl_ did mean a “proverb,” i.e. a sentence expressing some truth, not necessarily religious or ethical, which had been reached by experience or observation.

The Hebrew words for “Wisdom” (_Chokmah_) and for “wise men” (_Chakāmîm_) are found fairly frequently in the Pentateuch as well as in the prophetic and historical books; but the usual meaning in these differs from that found in the Wisdom Literature.

Of the several conceptions of Wisdom in the Wisdom Literature the most important is that expressed in the well-known words: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom”; this occurs again and again in varying form, its real meaning being that the fear of the Lord is the _end_ of Wisdom, its highest and most perfect form. In this Literature there is always a religious content in Wisdom; it is never used of pure knowledge. In Proverbs and Ecclesiastes there is much about worldly wisdom, but the faculty of distinguishing between good and evil always comes from God.

The personification of Wisdom found in this Literature is of far-reaching importance. We must neither read into the passages which treat of this a meaning they were not intended to bear, nor must we explain away the meaning that was really intended. When among the Jewish sages of old Wisdom was personified, they thought of a personality existing alongside of God, an intermediate being between God and the world. This is more or less parallel to the personification or quasi-personification of attributes proper to God which is found in early post-Christian Jewish writings. The special importance of this conception of Wisdom lies not only in the fact that it forms the link between the Palestinian and Hellenic development of Judaism, but also that it represents the contribution made by the Wisdom Literature to the Christology of the New Testament, and has, moreover, greatly influenced Christian theology.

In the earlier portions of Proverbs, Wisdom is always presented as something abstract, except perhaps in xvii. 24. A real personification is found in the later parts. In Job it is the wisdom of experience that normally finds expression; but there is a definite personification in xxxviii. 12-28. In Ecclesiastes Wisdom is always something abstract, and, a unique element, the estimate of Wisdom is affected by the Preacher’s pessimism. In Ecclesiasticus all that is taught in the other books about Wisdom finds expression, with the exception of the pessimism of Ecclesiastes; the identification of the Law with Wisdom is a striking characteristic. The Jewish-Hellenistic writer of the Book of Wisdom identifies Wisdom with the holy spirit of the Lord, as well as with the Word (in the Jewish sense), and teaches its divine origin and its existence before the creation of the world (this is common to the Wisdom Literature generally).

A brief glance at the teaching concerning Wisdom in the Apocalyptic Literature shows that there is very little in the earliest parts of the Book of Enoch, but there are a number of passages which touch the subject in the “Similitudes,” some of which have peculiar features. In the Secrets of Enoch Wisdom is represented as taking part in the Creation.