CHAPTER IX

The Book of Wisdom

(The Wisdom of Solomon)

[LITERATURE.—Grimm, _Das Buch der Weisheit erklärt_ (1860); Montefiore, _The Wisdom of Solomon_ (1887); Farrar, in Wace, I, pp. 403-534; Deane, _The Book of Wisdom_ ... (1881); Menzel, _Der griechische Einfluss auf Prediger und Weisheit Salomos_, pp. 39-70 (1889); Bois, _Essai sur les origines de la philosophie judéo-alexandrine_ (1890); Schürer, II, iii. pp. 230-237, German ed., pp. 505-512; Siegfried, in Kautzsch, I, pp. 476-507; Linke, _Samarien und seine Propheten_, pp. 119-144 (1903); Stevenson, _Wisdom and Jewish Apocryphal Writings_ (1903); M. Friedländer, _Griechische Philosophie im Alten Testamente_, pp. 182-208 (1904); Zeller, _Outlines of Greek Philosophy_ (1909); Gregg, _The Wisdom of Solomon_ (1909); Holmes, in Charles, I, pp. 518-568; Goodrick, _The Book of Wisdom_ (1913). See also the articles by Freudenthal, in “The Jewish Quarterly Review,” III, pp. 722-753 (1891), Siegfried, in Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_, and Toy, in the _Encycl. Bibl._]

I. THE TITLE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK

The title “The Wisdom of Solomon” in the English Versions comes from the Greek manuscripts,[468] the three oldest of which have this exact title, while, in one form or another, they _all_ have it. But the Old Latin Version has only “The Book of Wisdom,” without any mention of Solomon; and the Syriac Version, while ascribing it to Solomon, adds, “of which there is a doubt; whether another wise man of the Hebrews wrote it in a prophetic spirit, putting it in the name of Solomon, and it was received.”[469] Although some of the early Latin Fathers believed that the book was the work of Solomon, they formed the exceptions; it is obvious that it cannot have been written by him, as we shall see as we proceed. But it may well be asked why it should have been ascribed to Solomon; the usual and obvious answer that to the Jews Solomon was the wisdom-writer _par excellence_, and that therefore anyone desiring to commend a book on wisdom would naturally choose this name as a pseudonym in preference to any other, is doubtless correct in a general way; but Plumptre has suggested a stronger reason; believing that the book was written in antagonism to Ecclesiastes,[470] he says: “Let us remember in what light it [i.e. Ecclesiastes] must have presented itself to him [i.e. the writer of Wisdom]. It had not ... the claim which comes from the reverence due to the authority of a remote antiquity or an unquestioned acceptance. He must have known that it had not been received as canonical without serious opposition, that the strictest school of the Pharisees had been against its reception, that it had seemed to them tainted with the heresy of Epicuræanism and Sadduceeism. If it was interpreted then as it has often been interpreted since, it may have seemed to him to sanction a lawless sensuality, to fall in with the thoughts of those who said, ‘let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die,’ and to throw doubt, if not denial, on the soul’s immortality. Was this, he seems to have asked himself, the true ideal of wisdom? Was it not his duty to bring before men another Solomon than that whose experience seemed to end in materialism and pessimism, in the scepticism of an endless doubt? And so he, too, adopts without any hesitation the form of personated authorship.”[471] This puts the matter on a higher plane altogether. That the writer of our book had what he considered to be the erroneous teaching of Ecclesiastes in mind will be clear to any one who reads Wisdom ii. 1-9 in conjunction with the following passages from Ecclesiastes:[472]

Wisdom ii. 1 with Ecclesiastes ii. 23, v. 1. ” ii. 2 ” ” iii. 19, cp. ix. ii. ” ii. 3 ” ” xii. 7. ” ii. 4 ” ” i. 11, ii. 16, ix. 5, ii. 11. ” ii. 5 ” ” vi. 12, viii. 8. ” ii. 6 ” ” ii. 24. ” ii. 7 ” ” ix. 7. ” ii. 8 ” ” ix. 8. ” ii. 9 ” ” iii. 22, v. 18, ix. 8.

In Wisdom ii. 1 ff. (“For they said within themselves, reasoning not aright ...”) the writer is describing the tenets of the ungodly; and what he says agrees not only in substance, but often even verbally, with the corresponding passages in Ecclesiastes.

Bearing Plumptre’s words in mind, therefore, and remembering what has been said above[473] regarding the estimate of the function and importance of authorship among Easterns of earlier times, we should not be justified in seeing any fraudulent intention on the part of our author in putting the name of Solomon to the title of his book.

As to the personality of the author[474] but very few _data_ are to be gathered from the book; he must in all probability have been a Jew (cp. xii. 22), but a Hellenistic Jew, yet loyal to the Law[475] (xviii. 4), who lived and wrote in Egypt (see xii. 23 ff., xv. 18, 19, xvi. 1, 9, where reference is made to Egyptian animal-worship); his Jewish feeling is evidenced throughout the book; that he was domiciled in Alexandria is highly probable, for this was the centre of Jewish-Hellenistic culture. As Gregg well points out, the author “makes no effort to disguise his sympathy with Hellenic thought. He is a Euhemerist in his account of the origin of idol-worship (xiv.); he is a Platonist in his sense of the beauty of the world, and in his argument that its beauty points to a supreme First Cause. He draws on Plato for his doctrine of pre-existing matter (xi. 17), of the pre-existence of the soul (viii. 19), and of the body as an obstacle in the path to spiritual knowledge (ix. 15). The teaching of the Stoics suggested to him the penetratingness of Wisdom (vii. 24), and her quickness of understanding (vii. 22). The doctrine of Providence (xiv. 3) and the conception of the four cardinal virtues (viii. 7), were a loan partly from Plato and partly from the Stoics. This combination of knowledge of Egypt and sympathy with Greek studies points plainly to Alexandria; and the inference is strengthened by a comparison of Wisdom with the writings of the Alexandrian Philo. For the affinity between them is so close, that the author has been styled a pre-Philonic Philonist. Like Philo (but in a more uncompromising way), he is a Jew loyal to the national religion; and no centre offered the same opportunities as did Alexandria for a Jew who wished to unite a liberal eclecticism with his traditional faith.”[476] For the influence of Greek philosophy to be discerned in the book see Part I, Chapter IV.

II. THE DATE OF THE BOOK

Among modern scholars controversy regarding the date of our book centres round the question as to whether it belongs to the middle of the last century B.C. or about a hundred years later, though some (e.g. Gregg, _Op. cit._, p. xi.) would date it as early as “within the last quarter of the second century B.C.” There are three main points to be taken into consideration in seeking to fix an approximate date.

(_a_) The author quotes from the Septuagint of the Book of Isaiah (ii. 12, cp. Isa. iii. 10, and xv. 10, cp. Isa. xliv. 20), and also from the Book of Job (xii. 12, cp. Job ix. 12, 19); therefore these books must have already existed in their Greek form. Now from the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus it is evident that the prophetical books had been translated into Greek before Sirach’s grandson translated his grandfather’s work, and that therefore these books formed part of the Septuagint before B.C. 132.[477] But as regards the Book of Job, and the _Hagiographa_ generally,[478] we cannot say with any certainty at what precise period they were translated[479]; Swete, after reviewing the evidence, says: “Thus while the testimony of the first century A.D. does not absolutely require us to believe that all the books of the Hebrew canon had been translated and were circulated in a Greek version during the Apostolic age, such a view is not improbable; and it is confirmed by the fact that they are all contained in the canon of the Greek Bible which the Christian Church received from its Jewish predecessors.”[480] The fact, therefore, that the author of Wisdom quotes from the Book of Job in its Greek form makes it reasonably certain that our book was written during the last century B.C.

(_b_) The next point is as to the historical conditions reflected in the book. Quite recently Goodrick has examined this question with great care, and it is one which needs a brief consideration. Rightly or wrongly, it is often taken for granted that the book was written at a time when the Jews were suffering, or had recently suffered, persecution; such passages as ii. 10-20, vi. 5-9 are supposed to be references to this. What persecution is it, then, to which reference is made? Goodrick believes that the allusion is to a persecution under Caligula (A.D. 37-41). After giving the historical details, he sums up as follows: “A sore persecution has just been endured; a persecution not to the death indeed, but involving grave damage and distress. This persecution, founded in part on gross calumny, had as one of its main features the attempted enforcement of idolatry, and of idolatry in its most insane and revolting form—the worship of a living man. This living man was a prince ruling at a distance, but his commands were enforced by apostate Jews dwelling close at hand, who had surrendered their ancient belief without sincerely adopting any other, and represented no religion except that of Epicureanism, for which they sought to find their text-book in the so-called Solomon’s ‘Preacher.’ This persecution had been carried on through the agency of the dregs of the populace of Alexandria, wherein were represented the superstition of ancient Egypt at its worst, combined with hereditary Greek hatred of the Jews, and wild misrepresentation of their religion and ordinances. Finally, a time of temporary repose must be pictured, in which it was possible to substitute severe rebuke for furious complaint. All these conditions the period from A.D. 41 to 44 presents, and an examination of the Book of Wisdom confirms the belief that it was then written.”[481] In support of this Goodrich refers first to ii. 10-20, where the ungodly say “within themselves, reasoning not aright” (see ii. 1):[482]

10. Let us oppress the righteous poor; Let us not spare the widow, Nor reverence the grey hairs of the old man full of years.

11. But let our strength be to us a law of righteousness, For weakness is condemned as unprofitable.

12. But let us lie in wait for the righteous, for he is useless to us, And is opposed to our doings, And upbraideth us for sins against the Law, And denounceth to us sins against our discipline.

13. For he professeth to have knowledge of God, And calleth himself the servant of the Lord.

14. He became for us a rebuke to our machinations;

15. He is grievous unto us even to look upon, Because his life is unlike other men’s, And his ways are peculiar.

16. As base metal were we accounted by him, And he abstaineth from our ways as from uncleanness. He calleth the latter end of the righteous blessed, And vaunteth that God is his Father.

17. Let us see if his words be true. Yea, and make trial of what will happen at his going forth.

18. For if the righteous man be God’s son, He will uphold him, And will deliver him out of the hand of them that rise up against him.

19. With insult and torture let us test him, That we may know his tolerance, And judge of his endurance of evil.

20. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, So shall there be made examination of him from his own words.

Goodrick maintains that we have here the description of the oppression of the righteous man. Of the calumnies which had instigated the persecution, “that which had obtained the widest circulation ... was that of the hatred of the Jews for all mankind except their own nation. It is probably alluded to in ii. 15, and is controverted in xii. 19” (“... the righteous must be a lover of mankind”). Further, he says that the allusion to the deification of living men is plain in xiv. 16, 17:

Then in time, being enforced, the impious custom was kept as a law, And by the commands of despots graven images were worshipped, Whom men, not being able to honour in their presence, through dwelling at a distance, Counterfeiting their features far away, Made a visible image of the honoured king, To flatter by their zeal the absent as present (cp. also vi. 2).

Finally, the most striking reference to contemporary matters, says Goodrick, is “that in xix. 5 as to the rights of citizenship”:

But these with feastings (First) welcoming _them that already shared the same rights_, Vexed them with sore labours.

Regarding the question of historical conditions by itself Goodrick’s contention as to the date of our book is weighty; but even so his arguments do not necessarily carry conviction. It is not necessary, as Toy points out, “to suppose that the work was composed in the midst of one of the violently hostile movements. The author, even if he lived in a relatively quiet time, would know enough of the general fortunes of his people to paint his pictures of suffering (ii.-v., xiv.). Nor is his reference to the worship of the statues of kings (xiv. 16-20) chronologically decisive, for divine worship was paid to Ptolemy I, and probably to Antiochus II, as well as to Caligula and other Roman emperors. The author is, in fact, as Grimm remarks, giving a learned account of the origin of idolatry, and it is unnecessary to assume that the deified princes to whom he refers were his contemporaries.”[483] It is also necessary to remember that the command to worship the statue of Caligula meant the setting up of his effigy in the Temple at Jerusalem and in the synagogues of Alexandria; is it likely that our author, loyal and ardent Jew that he was, would use the mild language that he does if it were a question of such a supreme outrage upon Jewish belief and practice?

(_c_) But there is another point to be taken into consideration in discussing the date of our book, namely, whether or not it is pre-Philonian. Diametrically opposed views are held by scholars; Schürer (_Op. cit._, II, iii. p. 234) regards it as certain that our book precedes Philo, for “his standpoint is a preliminary step to Philo’s.” This, as he says, would not in itself prove a higher antiquity; “but with the near affinity of the two it is inconceivable that our author would have remained unaffected by Philo if he had succeeded him.” Farrar (_Op. cit._, p. 421) says that the impression left on his mind is that “the book was composed in the Roman epoch, and by an author who was familiar with the speculations of Philo, but regarded them from a completely independent point of view. The impression that he was to some extent influenced by the views of Philo, and that Philo was not influenced by him, is very strong. If he had preceded Philo, some traces of the powerful style and individuality and phraseology of the Pseudo-Solomon must surely have been observable in the voluminous pages of the Jewish Theosophist.” Goodrick, while agreeing with Farrar that the author of our book regarded the speculations from a completely independent point of view, does not think that there is the slightest reference or allusion in either from either. While it is, so far, true that, as Goodrick says, “we are left to the _à priori_ conjectures of scholars,” there is one important point, emphasized by Gregg, which seems conclusive; Gregg writes (_Op. cit._, p. xii.): “In spite of the remarkable similarity (in some cases amounting almost to identity) of the language of Philo and that of Wisdom, there is one vital difference which points to a considerably earlier date for the latter. The Logos-idea is the leading feature of Philo’s system, and there is in Wisdom no trace of the Philonian Logos, nor is the Divine Wisdom ever even identified with the Logos. In Philo’s time the Logos-doctrine must have belonged to current Alexandrian thought; had Philo been its originator, he would have asserted it in a more polemical manner. Accordingly, time must be allowed for the development of a doctrine which Philo found ready to hand, and that length of time must have separated the composition of Wisdom from the writings of Philo. The inference is (see Grimm, _Intr._, p. 34), that Wisdom was composed a considerable time, perhaps a century, before Philo, who was born about B.C. 20, began to write.” This is a strong argument, though it does not seem necessary to date our book as much as a century before the time of Philo. Holmes grants the validity of Gregg’s argument (which is also that of Grimm), though, as he says, “it only means that the book must be earlier than the student-life of Philo, which may be placed from B.C. 5-A.D. 5.... But ignorance of the Alexandrine Logos-doctrine can only affect the date of the first part of the book; the second part may with Bousset (_Religion des Judenthums_, p. 35) be dated after the beginning of the Empire (say B.C. 30), on account of xiv. 17, where the likeness of an _absent_ ruler is mentioned” (_Op. cit._, p. 521). All things considered, the most probable date would seem to be the latter half of the last century B.C., the earlier half of the book belonging to the beginning, the later half to the end, of this period.

III. THE QUESTION OF COMPOSITE AUTHORSHIP

The question of the unity, or otherwise, of the book is a difficult one; the arguments used in support of either position are strong; anyone who reads them all would, we should imagine, hesitate to pronounce a definite opinion unless he had some new argument to present on one side or the other.[484] We shall briefly enumerate the reasons which have led many scholars to believe that the book is of composite authorship. Upon one point all authorities are agreed, whether they accept the unity of the book or not, namely, that it is divided into two distinct parts: ii.-xi. 1, and xi. 2-xix. It is the differences of various kinds between these two parts which have suggested composite authorship; these are as follows:

(_a_) The conception of God; in part I God’s action is represented in a way quite different from that taught in part II; this will be seen from the few following quotations from each part. In vii. 22-viii. 1 Wisdom is spoken of in such a way as to show that God acts _indirectly_ through it:

... Beneficent, loving toward man, Steadfast, sure, free from care; All-powerful, all-surveying, And penetrating through all spirits That are quick of understanding; pure, subtil, For Wisdom is more mobile than any motion; Yea, she pervadeth and penetrateth all things by reason of her pureness. For she is a breath of the power of God ... ... For she is an effulgence from everlasting light, And an unspotted mirror of the working of God, And an image of His goodness. And she, though but one, hath power to do all things ... ... But she reacheth from one end of the world to the other with full strength, And ordereth all things well (cp. also x. 1 ff.).

And again in viii. 6 it is said:

Who more than Wisdom is an artificer of the things that are?

It is clear enough from these passages that the Divine action is represented as being accomplished through the agency of Wisdom. In contrast to this God’s action is represented as _direct_ in part II; for example, in xv. 1 we read:

But Thou, our God, art gracious and true, Longsuffering, and in mercy ordering all things.

The same truth is taught in xiii. 1:

For by nature all men were foolish, and had no perception of God, And from the good things to be seen had not power to know Him that is, Neither by giving honour to the works did they recognize the Artificer.

(_b_) Another thing which is believed to point to a difference of authorship is that in part I Wisdom plays a most important _rôle_, whereas in part II it is never mentioned.[485] This is rather striking, especially when taken in conjunction with what has been said in (_a_), for so many opportunities occur in part II for Wisdom to be mentioned; in a number of passages it might have found a place very naturally. For an author who has such an exalted conception of Wisdom as the writer of part I, it certainly strikes one as strange to find that he suddenly ignores it altogether in part II; whereas if the latter was of different authorship no problem presents itself.

(_c_) Further, the generally broad outlook of part I stands in striking contrast to the pronounced particularism of the second part. This in itself is, of course, not sufficient to decide the question of authorship in favour of duality any more than the other arguments put forth; but the cumulative effect of all cannot be ignored; and this is emphasized by one more, perhaps the strongest, argument, viz.:

(_d_) Stylistic and linguistic differences. In part I the style is “relatively simple and direct, with constant regard to the Hebrew principle of parallelism, whilst, in the second part, it is ambitious, grandiloquent, or turgid, complicated and artificial, often without parallelism.”[486] With regard to the linguistic differences Holmes[487] has recently made a careful examination of them, and the results he gives are not to be ignored; they are far too detailed and technical to be dealt with here. But his own conclusion is that the difference in style, presentation and tone, together with those of language and diction, taken together with other problems which present themselves, are such that “there are considerable difficulties in the way of accepting the unity of authorship which have not been met by its upholders. If we could assume that the writer of the second part had studied the first part carefully, and wished to write a supplement to it, both resemblances and differences could be accounted for.”

But the arguments in favour of dual authorship have not been ignored by the champions of unity of authorship; their position has been well summed up by Toy thus: “It may be said that a logical unity [between the two parts] is recognizable in the fact that the two points of attack in the work, apostasy and idolatry, represent the two great enemies of the later devout Judaism, and that a consciousness of unity is shown in ix. 18, which makes the transition from the first part to the second,[488] and has not the appearance of an editorial insertion; that the similarity between i. 1 and vi. 1 suggests that the same speaker is intended throughout; that the non-mention of Wisdom after xi. 1 is due to the fact that the author became so immersed in his historical sketch (which he meant as an indictment of his own contemporaries) that he forgot the philosophical thesis with which he set out; that the change of style is a natural consequence of the change of the subject-matter, the moral and philosophical discussions falling more easily into the form of the Book of Proverbs, the dramatic scenes of the earlier history readily suggesting legendary touches and highly-coloured language; and that there are marked resemblances of tone and style in the two parts—e.g. the rush of thoughts of the second part is paralleled in the description of the wicked (v.) and of Wisdom (vii. 22-viii. 1), and the religiously elevated and dignified tone of the first part appears here and there in the second (cp. i. 13-15, ix. 1-6 with xi. 23-26, xii. 19, xvi. 7).” There is a great deal in what is here said; it cannot be denied that it is very difficult to come to a definite conclusion where the arguments on both sides are so strong. At the same time it is worth remembering that some writers who advocate unity of authorship recognize that their position is not impregnable; Eichhorn, for example, was so struck by the differences between the two parts that although he believed both were written by the same author he nevertheless thought that the second was written in his youth, the former in maturer years. Similarly, in one of the most recent commentaries on the book, that of Goodrick, the author says: “it is possible that a writer who had laid aside his work, dictated in the beginning by irritation at apostasy and persecution, gave it a new colour by adapting it to philosophic ideas which he had only lately assimilated, and, its original interest having passed with the times of persecution which suggested it, should endeavour to obtain a vogue for it by the direct ascription of it to Solomon.”[489] Goodrick is convinced of the unity of authorship, but thinks that the “Solomonic chapters” (vii.-ix.) were added after the rest of the book had been completed.

The possibilities of what the original facts of the case may have been are numerous; upon the whole, while fully recognizing the difficulties which surround the question, we do not feel convinced that the advocates of unity of authorship have established their view beyond possibility of doubt. Dual authorship seems to us the easier and more natural solution, though we are not blind to the fact that the easier way is not always the right one.

IV. THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE BOOK WAS WRITTEN

Whether our book was written by a single author, or whether each of the two parts were of different authorship (see above, § III), is immaterial so far as the aims and objects of the book are concerned; for there is no doubt that it was of Jewish authorship and that is was written for Jews[490]—Egyptian Jews—who were beset by four special dangers, viz. Scepticism, Materialism, Idolatry and Persecution. That the writer of each part was a Jew we have already seen (§ I); that the book was written for Jews is clear enough from the fact that it contains numerous allusions to the past history of Israel which are no more than allusions; it is taken for granted that the readers understand them without further explanation. Moreover, historical characters are again and again spoken of without mentioning their names; it is assumed that the readers will know who is meant since the references are to persons who took a leading part in the past history of Israel. It is, therefore, for the benefit of his own people in Egypt, that the writer warns or encourages or denounces, according to the particular danger combated.

(_a_) _Scepticism._

The old problem of the godly in adversity and the wicked in prosperity was evidently exercising the minds of many Jews in Alexandria to the detriment of both their faith and morals. Since there was no divine justice, and life was short, they advocated making the most of life while they enjoyed it, without considering others. The writer, in ii. 1-20, describes the attitude of the wicked, putting into their mouths the words which express this attitude:

Short and sorrowful is our life, And there is no remedy when a man cometh to his end, And none was ever known that returned from Hades. Because by mere chance were we born, And hereafter we shall be as though we had never been.... Come, therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that now are; And let us use creation with all earnestness as youth’s possession. Let us fill ourselves with costly wine and perfumes ... Let us oppress the righteous poor, Let us not spare the widow, Nor reverence the hairs of the old man grey for length of years.... We were accounted of him as base metal, And he abstaineth from our ways as from uncleannesses. The latter end of the righteous he calleth happy; And he vaunteth that God is his father. Let us see if his words be true, And let us try what shall befall in the ending of his life. For if the righteous man is God’s son He will uphold him, And He will deliver him out of the hand of his adversaries....

This attitude the writer combats by asserting first that the wicked will not escape punishment:

Therefore no man that uttereth unrighteous things shall be unseen; Neither shall Justice, when it punisheth, pass him by. For the counsels of the ungodly shall be searched out, And the report of his words shall come unto the Lord For the punishment of his lawless deeds ... (i. 6-11).

But the writer declares, further, that not only in this life shall the wicked be punished, but in the next world as well, while the godly will then be recompensed. He says of the wicked that:

They knew not the mysteries of God, Neither hoped they for wages of holiness, Nor did they judge that there is a prize for blameless souls. Because God created man for incorruption ... (ii. 21-24).

Then follows the well-known passage concerning the blessedness of the righteous:

But the souls of the righteous are in the hands of God ... (iii. 1-9),

and in the verses that follow (iii. 10 ff.) the writer describes the torment of the wicked in the world to come. The true way to prepare in this world for the next is by the acquisition of Wisdom:

For her true beginning is desire of instruction; And the care for instruction is love of her; And love of her is observance of her laws; And to give heed to her laws is the assurance of incorruption; And incorruption bringeth near to God; So then the desire of Wisdom promoteth to a kingdom (vi. 17-20).

One purpose, therefore, of the book is to bring the godless sceptics among the Jews to a better frame of mind; and this is done mainly by setting forth the doctrine of immortality, and retribution or reward in the world to come.

(_b_) _Materialism._

Closely connected with the preceding was a second danger, that of Materialism, the combating of which was another purpose that the writer had in view in writing his book. In a passage already referred to, which contains the words put by the writer into the mouth of the ungodly, the existence of this danger is seen from the following words:

Let us fill ourselves with costly wine and perfumes; And let no flower of spring pass us by. Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds, before they wither, Let there be no meadow without traces of our proud revelry. Everywhere let us leave tokens of our mirth, Because this is our portion, and our lot is this (ii. 7-9).

For these materialists the writer has the same message as for the sceptics:

The ungodly shall be requited as they reasoned (iii. 10).

They had reasoned that fulness of this life’s enjoyment was their portion and their lot; so it shall be; but they are warned of what is to come hereafter:

They shall come, when their sins are reckoned up, with coward fear; And their lawless deeds shall convict them to their face (iv. 20; and cp. v. 1-14).

It is by means of the doctrine of immortality that the writer seeks to combat these dangers of scepticism and materialism. The recognition of this truth of a life hereafter is wisdom (see vi. 17-20 quoted above).

(_c_) _Idolatry._

That a further object of the book is to utter a warning against idolatry is obvious from what is said in chapters xiii.-xv.; but whether the writer has in view mainly the Gentiles among whom he was living or the renegades of his own race, is differently answered by commentators. Probably both are in the writer’s mind. At any rate, his polemic against idolatry is very thorough; he regards it as the cause of all kinds of evil:

For the devising of idols was the beginning of fornication, And the invention of them the corruption of life ... And all things confusedly are filled with blood and murder, theft and deceit, Corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury. Disquieting of the good, Ingratitude for benefits received, Defiling of souls, confusion of sex. Disorder in marriage, adultery and wantonness. For the worship of those unnameable idols Is the beginning and cause and end of every evil ... (xiv. 12-31).

From the words that follow it would seem that in this passage, at any rate, it is apostate Jews which the writer has in mind:

For their worshippers either make merry unto madness, or prophesy lies, Or live unrighteously, or lightly forswear themselves; For, putting their trust in lifeless idols, They wickedly swear false oaths, and look not to be harmed But for both sins shall the just doom pursue them, Because they had evil thoughts of God by giving heed to idols, And swore unrighteously in deceit, despising holiness ... (xiv. 28-31).

For such a particularist as the writer of the second part of our book the words, “because they had evil thoughts of God” could only refer to apostate Jews, for he would not contemplate the Egyptians with their animal-worship as even thinking of God; the same would apply to the words “despising holiness.”

(_d_) _Persecution._

Lastly, the writer wrote with the purpose of comforting and encouraging his people in face of persecution which they were suffering from the Egyptians; as Gregg rightly points out, the Jews must have been suffering from pressure from without, for “nothing else will account for the intensity of the writer’s hatred of Egypt, which he gratifies as he lingers over the bondage of the Israelites, and labours the contrast between the fortunes of oppressors and oppressed (x. 16 ff., xi. 1 ff., xvi.-xix.). History repeats itself, and he regards the study of history as the best remedy for national depression. If it was in respect of its divinities that Egypt was smitten in the time of Moses, and if idolatry is not only folly but the cause of all social and civic decadence (xiii.-xv.), the suppressed conclusion is that the Egypt which still harries the resident Jews and has not yet repented of its beast-worship, will once again bend before Israel.”[491]

V. THE INFLUENCE OF THE BOOK ON ST. PAUL

There are a large number of passages in the Pauline Epistles in which the influence of our book is to be discerned; to quote all the passages from Wisdom and the corresponding ones in the Epistles would be out of the question here; but a few examples may be given in order to show how necessary the study of this book is for the New Testament student.

In ii. 23, 24 a doctrine of the Fall is touched upon which reflects the Jewish ideas on the subject current at the time:

Because God created man for incorruption, And made him an image of His own proper being; But by the envy of the devil _death entered into the world_, And they that belong to his realm experience it.

With these words should be compared the two following passages: Romans v. 12, “Therefore, as through one man _sin entered into the world, and death through sin_; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned”; cp. 1 Corinthians xv. 21, 22.

In iii. 8 it is said of the righteous departed that:

They shall judge nations, and have dominion over peoples; And the Lord shall reign over them for evermore.

This reminds one forcibly of St. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians vi. 2, 3:

Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world...? know ye not that we shall judge angels...?

In both these cases it is, of course, possible that the similarity exists solely because in both sets of passages current Jewish ideas find expression; in the following one, however, it is difficult to believe that it did not influence St. Paul when he wrote the well-known words in Ephesians vi. 11-20, beginning: “Put on the whole armour of God”; the passage in Wisdom is v. 17-20:

He shall take His jealousy as complete armour, And shall make the whole creation His weapons for vengeance upon His enemies: He shall put on righteousness as a breastplate, And shall take judgement unfeigned as a helmet; He shall take holiness as an invincible shield, And shall sharpen stern wrath as a sword.

It is probable that the writer of this had in mind Isaiah lix. 17: “And He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon His head; and He put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke”; but while this passage was no doubt the original inspiration of both Wisdom v. 17-20 and Ephesians vi. 11-20, one cannot read these two latter without feeling convinced that St. Paul knew and utilized the Book of Wisdom. On the other hand, regarding the somewhat intricate subject of “the elements of the world,” which is referred to more than once both in Wisdom and by St. Paul, while one would hesitate to assert definitely that the latter was influenced by the former it offers a good illustration of the need of studying St. Paul’s writings in the light of this book. To show what we mean it will suffice to put the respective passages in parallel columns, and the reader will at once see the connection:

Wisdom vii. 17: “For He hath Colossians ii. 8: “Take heed lest given me unerring knowledge there shall be any one that of the things that are, to maketh spoil of you through know the constitution of the his philosophy and vain deceit, world, and the working of the after the tradition of elements.” men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ.” Wisdom xix. 18-21: “For the elements changed their order Colossians ii. 20: “If ye died with one with another....” Christ from the elements of the world, seek the things that are Wisdom xiii. 2, 3: “But whether above, where Christ is....” fire, or wind, or swift air, or circling stars, or raging water, Galatians iv. 3: “So we also, or luminaries of heaven, they when we were children, were thought (all) were gods that held in bondage under the rule the world. And if elements of the world.” through delight in their beauty they took them to be gods, Galatians iv. 8, 9: “Howbeit at let them know how much that time, not knowing God, better than these is their ye were in bondage to them Sovereign Lord....” which by nature are no gods; but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known of God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again?” (cp. Heb. v. 12; 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12).

Whatever may be meant here by “the elements of the world,” it is clear that St. Paul is combating a false doctrine regarding belief in elemental spirits; and for the study of this subject recourse to the Book of Wisdom is imperative. An interesting parallel is that between Wisdom ix. 15:

For a corruptible body weigheth down the soul, And the earthly frame lieth heavy on the mind that is full of cares,

and 2 Corinthians v. 1: “For we know that if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building from ...,” and verse 4: “For indeed we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened....”

And once more, in Wisdom xi. 23 it is said:

But Thou hast mercy on all men, because Thou hast power to do all things, And Thou overlookest the sins of men to the end that they may repent.

We are at once reminded of St. Paul’s words in Romans ii. 4: “Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” (cp. Rom. xi. 32).

Still more striking is the following:

Wisdom xv. 7: “For a potter, Romans ix. 21-23: “Or hath kneading soft earth, laboriously not the potter a right over the mouldeth each vessel for clay, from the same lump to our service: nay, out of the make one part a vessel unto same clay doth he fashion both honour, and another unto the vessels that minister to dishonour? What if God, clean uses, and those of a willing to show His wrath, contrary sort, all in like manner; and to make His power known, but what shall be the endured with much longsuffering use of either sort, the craftsman vessels of wrath himself is the judge.” fitted unto destruction; and that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy...?”

Space forbids us to do more than merely refer to other striking resemblances and parallel passages which further illustrate the influence of this book upon St. Paul, the three following subjects would, however, repay careful study: the qualities of Wisdom—with Wisdom vii. 22-viii. 1, ix. 6-17 compare 1 Corinthians ii. 6-16; the doctrine of Predestination—with Wisdom xii., xv. 7 compare Romans ix. 19-23; the question of heathen idolatry—with Wisdom xiii., xiv. compare Romans i. 18-32.

The number of parallels, in the words of Thackeray, “between St. Paul and Wisdom put it beyond doubt that the Apostle had at one time made a close study of the apocryphal book. It was a book which no doubt had a wide circulation at an early time, being the noblest product of the pre-Christian Judaism of Alexandria, and combining in the choicest language the broader views of Hellenism with the narrower national spirit of Judaism: a combination which would make it of special interest to the Apostle who sought to make himself all things to all men that he might by all means gain some. ‘A practical man with the sharp outlook for practical needs, Paul took what was good wherever it offered itself.’ The influence is rather formal than substantial. But in three, not unimportant points, the Apostle’s views on idolatry, on predestination and on eschatology, he has been to some extent affected by the matter, and not only the manner, of the Alexandrian work.”[492]

For the further study of this subject the excellent book of Thackeray’s, just quoted, is invaluable, as is also Grafe’s _Das Verhältniss der Paulinischen Schriften zur Sapientia Salomonis_ (1892); see also Sanday and Headlam’s _Romans_, passim, and Hausrath, _Der Apostel Paulus_, p. 23 (1872).

It is probable that the influence of _Wisdom_ is to be discerned in other books of the New Testament; Gregg, _Op. cit._, pp. liv.-lvi., gives a long list of parallels between the book and St. John’s Gospel; and for parallels with the epistle of St. James, see the same author, pp. lix., lx. and Mayor’s _St. James_, p. lxxv.