'^-'fjr^^- 3 1 mW+tlttcjewait>H-.i«tUM-H W tMli'^^UL ~iHcf.--HH^;-^ifr"- THE GIFT OF Alfred OD. Barnes. BS1755 .Gm" ""'™""" '■'""^ Book of wisdom : with introduction and n olin 3 1924 032 335 873 The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924032335873 Zbc ®yfort> Cburcb Bible Commentari? THE BOOK OF WISDOM WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES EDITED BY THE REV. A. T. S. GOODRICK, M.A. RECTOR OF WINTERBOURNE, BRISTOL FORMERLY FELLOW AND TUTOR OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, OXFORD NEW YORK THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 191 3 COPYRIGHT PREFACE ' When will the learned man appear,' asks Harnack, speaking of the Apocrypha, 'who will at length throw light upon these writings ? ' The answer, so far as concerns the Book of Wisdom, is 'Never.' No learned man will ever be able to explain the mind of an author who did not know it himself. Such attempts have been made in respect of modern writers, and the result has been unsatis- factory. With regard to the ' Wisdom of Solomon,' the time of theories is past. They must still be chronicled, but they are never final. All that remains is to secure a rational exegesis, for which much has yet to be done. For such exegesis Grimm's admirable Commentary must always be the foundation. For the summary of the views of previous critics, for the collection of parallel and illuminative passages, and for rational explanation of difficulties, the work stands by itself. Yet it has its faults. Far too little attention is paid to the last chapters of the book, which are indeed generally neglected as of little philosophical interest. Theologically, as a matter of fact, and as representing a distinctly Egypto-Hebraic point of view of God's Providence, they are infinitely more interesting than the first part, and that they were full of difficulty even for ancient readers is shown by the iv THE BOOK OF WISDOM number of" variations of interpretation in the versions, far more numerous than in the earlier chapters. Yet these are almost entirely neglected by Grimm, who does not even notice the strange aberrations (or paraphrases) of the Peshitto-Syriac. Moreover, the number of his false citaticfns is amazing. In many cases this is probably due to the printer's error, but not always ^ ; the present editor has collected upwards of seventy such mistakes — a warn- ing that the book must be treated with the greatest caution in this respect. The present editor had purposed, and did to a certain extent execute, a careful study of the older commentators enumerated in Mr. Deane's Bibliography of ' Wisdom.' He quickly found that, with the exception of the merely homiletic writers, there were few indeed whose conclusions had not been briefly and acutely summarised by Grimm. Exception must be made in the case of Holkot, whose merits are hereafter discussed, and whose works Grimm seems to have as a rule neglected. Nor is he quite fair to the brilliantly original work of Bretschneider, among later critics. But with the writings called forth by the famous German ' Apokryphenfrage ' (which often con- tained a good deal more than mere polemic) he was thoroughly acquainted, and gives us the results. Grimm's work, in the form of a judicious adaptation (at times a translation), was presented to English readers by Dr. Farrar in the Speaker s Commentary. He added to it much illustration from modern and especially English sources, and, best of all, he supplemented his author's ' E.g. on 14", after enumerating passages, quite correctl)', where li'iXov meaiis tlie cross of Christ, Grimm subjoins Acts-16^'', where it means ' the stocks.' PREFACE V jejune notes on the last ten chapters so effectively that he is cited by modern German critics (under the name of ' Wace ' !) as an independent authority. Unhappily Dr. Farrar did not verify Grimm's references/ and he quoted books which he had never seen. Yet at the time of its appearance (1888), and for long after, his work was far the best available for English students. In many respects it is so still. A few years before the appearance of the Speaker's Commentary, in 1881, Mr. Deane had published his elaborate edition of the Old Latin, the Greek Text, and the Authorised Version. To this work, with its full citations from the Fathers and its commonsense way of dealing with difficulties, the editor must acknowledge his great indebtedness. Mr. Deane's estimate of Philo's philosophy, in his Introduction, is severe ; but no one who has had to read through the hazy and often contradictory lucu- brations of the old Alexandrian will deny that it is to some extent deserved. On the other hand, he speaks too slightingly of Bissell's American edition of the Apocrypha, which certainly contains some remarkable interpretations,^ but of which the greatest fault is certainly not that it ' seems to be chiefly a compilation from ' A single instance may suffice. Grimm on Wisdom 14' quoted the famous ' Illi robur at aes triplex ' as from the second oA& of Horace, Book I. (the equally famous ' Jam satis terris ')• Farrar copies the error ! As to the second charge : he cites Noack (Introd., 413 n.) as saying that 'Apollos wrote (Wisdom) with the help of St. Paul.' Now Noack's point is to prove the antagonism between Apollos and St. Paul. For other instances see the notes. Siegfried in Hast. D. B., iv. 931a, cites the works of Farrar and Deane as ' recent English translations.' Both adopt the Authorised Version as their text. 2 E.g. 1 5 18. a 2 vi THE BOOK OF WISDOM German sources.' Dr. Bissell's ' Introductions ' are often excellent. Quite recently there has appeared a small edition of the Book of Wisdom, with Introduction and Notes by Mr. J. A. F. Gregg. Nominally part of the Cambridge Series ' for Schools and Colleges,' this little book really embodies, especially in the Introduction, some of the most valuable results of modern criticism. The notes are excellent in respect of exegesis, but from the necessary limitations imposed on such a work do not deal with many questions which are here discussed. The edition of ' Wisdom ' by the late Father Cornely (Paris, 19 lo), revised by Zorell, appeared just in time to be utilised by the present editor. It contains undoubtedly the best commentary which has yet been published. The writer is distinguished both for his lucidity of thought and the' candour of his statements. He is by no means wedded, like so many of his predecessors, to the Latin version (cf his notes on 17*, iS-"-), and he does not hesitate to adopt the opinions of ' Acatholici ' when they appear the better, citing the English version at times with approval. His knowledge of the early commentators is superior even to that of Grimm. He has, however, his limitations. Apart from the onerous task, imposed on all members of his church, of defending the canonicity of the book, and to that end explaining away the blunders of Pseudo-Solomon, he exhibits certain idiosyncrasies. He holds to the idea that the picture of the persecuted Righteous Man in chap. 2 refers distinctly to the suffering Christ, and he refuses to acknowledge that the ' Wisdom ' of the first nine chapters is tacitly forgotten in the last ten. He even PREFACE vii insists, in spite of the strongest internal evidence, that the person addressed in chaps. 11-12 is not God but Wisdom, though he acknowledges that such Wisdom is there and thereafter treated merely as an attribute of God. On the other hand, he brushes aside without hesitation the time- honoured efforts to extract from the book authority for modern Roman doctrines. See his note on ' refrigerium ' in 4'. Lastly, we may note that he has little or no acquaintance with the Rabbinic legends and ideas by which so many passages of ' Wisdom ' can be elucidated. Within the last thirty years the recognition of the arbitrary nature of the Jewish canon of Scripture, and the awakened interest in the documents which form the ' bridge ' between Old and New Testament doctrine, have produced a number of works of which the result at least should be presented to the student of ' Wisdom.' Some writers, as Bois, Bertholet, Andr6, Grafe, Siegfried (in his all too brief Commentary appended to his translation in Kautzsch's Apokryphen), and Zenner, deal directly with the text of the book ; while among collateral works those of Edmund Pfleiderer, Schwally, Charles, Bousset, Mar- goliouth, Weber, Lincke, Deissmann, Drummond, and others furnish invaluable side-lights. To these should be added numerous articles in Hastings' Dictionary, in the Encydopcedia Biblica, and in the new edition of Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie. The contribution of Mr. F. C. Porter to our knowledge of ' Wisdom's ' psychology is dealt with here in a separate Additional Note. Nor should it be forgotten that within the period men- tioned many monumental works of criticism, for the knowledge of which English scholars were once condemned to wait for a translation often inadequate and sometimes viii THE BOOK OF WISDOM misleading, have, owing to the increasing knowledge of German in this country, been rendered accessible to multitudes of Biblical students. Gfrorer, Gratz, Langen, Bruch, Budde, Duhm, can now be read in their mother- tongue, and the advantage to English theological know- ledge has been incalculable, from the side both of con- structive and destructive criticism. From the Revised Version little or no assistance has been derived. It is perhaps the least successful of the translations of the Apocrypha undertaken by the revisers. It is diffuse without being explanatory ; and it includes some of the worst faults which made the New Testament revision fail, e.g, the attempt to represent the same Greek word by the same English word in whatever sense it occurs. In the case of the author of Wisdom, who, with a vocabulary at once limited and peculiar, had to make the same Greek word serve as the equivalent for many ideas, this is especially unhappy. The best renderings will generally be found, not in the text, but in the margin of the Revised Version.^ On two points the editor has ventured to differ from his predecessors : on one, from most ; on the other, from practically all. He cannot accept the assumption that the Book of Wisdom is a homogeneous whole, written by the same pen, at the same time, and with the same purpose. Secondly, a careful study of the text has convinced him that the author did not really know Greek. For both these views he trusts that he has sub- mitted sufficient grounds. The establishment of the ' For an instance of something like absolute mistranslation see 15", ftfhere the meaning of epxerm ds seems to be completely misunder- stood. PREFACE ix second would at all events clear away a niass of difficulties from the interpretation of ' Wisdom.' ^ ' • ' The text adopted for translation is Swete's, but with occasional corrections from Fritzsche, chiefly on the ground of the closer correspondence of the latter with the ancient versions. These the editor has examined and utilised to the best of his ability, and in particular he has used throughout the Hexaplar version of the Syriac, which has been greatly neglected, as reputed to be a mere slavish version of the Septuagint text. But which text ? The whole importance of the version depends upon that. t Quotations, where it seemed that they really tended to elucidation, haye been given in full, even at the risk of considerably increasing the volume of the book. It is unfair to expect the ordinary student to spend time over the consultation of every authority quoted ; it is still more disappointing for him to look out a reference with pains and trouble, and to find that the merest verbal ' Dr. J. H. Moulton, in his admirable ' Prolegomena,^ writes as follows of the New Testament authors: 'There is not the slightest presumption against the use of Greek in writings purporting to emanate from the circle of the first believers'. They would write as men who had used the language from boyhood, not as foreigners painfully expressing themselves in an imperfectly known idiom. .. . , It does not appear that any of them used Greek as we may sometimes find cultivated foreigners using English, obviously translating out of their own language as they go along.' This is no doubt absolutely true with regard to the New Testament authors : they wrote the Koivrj ; but Pseudo-Solomon does not write the KOLvrj. He writes classical Greek exactly as Dr. Moulton's cultivated foreigner would write English — \\'ith a scanty vocabulary and a tendency to old- fashioned forms of expression. It is much to be desired that some critic of Dr. Moulton's capacity and knowledge would turn his attention to the Greek of ' Wisdom.' X THE BOOK OF WISDOM correspondence is contained in the passage cited. The references to Philo, it may be remarked, are given, in accordance with modern usage, to the sections of the various books and not, as in the old cumbrous system, to the volumes and pages of Mangey's edition. A. T. S. GOODRICK. WiNTERBOURNE RECTORY, October 191 2. LIST OF ABBREVIATION'S Most of the abbreviations used in this work explain themselves the following, which occur only occasionally, may be noticed : — J. Q. R. = Jewish Quarterly Review. J. R. A. S. = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Bousset, Rel. desjud. = Religion des Judentumsini Neutestaiiientlichcn Zci taller, Berlin, 1903. Schiirer, H. J. P. = History of the Jewish People, English translation, vol. iii., Edinburgh, 1 886. Bois, Essai= Essai sur Ics origincs de la Philosopliie Judi'o- ale.xandrine, Toulouse, 1890. The following are common to the volumes of this series ; — • p? = the Hebrew text. «5, (!R^ ffi'', etc. = the various Greek MSS. of the Old and New Testa- ments. ![L = the Old Latin Version. S'' = the Syriac Peshitto. 5'' = the Syriac Hexaplar. 5'"'^'- = (in this volume) the fragments of the Syriac Palestinian ^'ersion. 2r = Targum, €''"■', Targum of Jonathan, f"^", the Jerusalem Targum CONTENTS INTRODUCTION— § I. Wisdom and the Hebrew Canon, . . . i § 2. Date of Composition, .... 5 § 3. Object of the Book, ..... 17 § 4. Title, 33 § 5. Authorship of Wisdom, . . . -37 § 6. The Conception of 'Wisdom' in the Book . 48 § 7. The Eschatology of Wisdom, . . -56 § 8. Language of the Book, . . . .6; § 9. Unity of the Book, ..... 72 § 10. The Manuscripts and Versions, . . .78 § II. Synopsis of the Book, . . . -83 TEXT AND NOTES, . . . . .85 ADDITIONAL NOTES- A. ' On the Pre-existbnce of the Soul in the Book of Wisdom,' ...... 377 B. On the Interpretation of Wisdom 3 ", . . 388 C. The Connection of St. Paul's Epistles with the Book of Wisdom, ..... 398 D. On the Connection of ' Wisdom ' with Greek Philosophy, ...... 404 E. God and Man in 'Wisdom,' . . . .411 F. A New Interpretation of Pseudo-Solomon's Idea of Wisdom, , . . , . .416 xii THE BOOK OF WISDOM PAGE APPENDICES— A. Egyptian Death-Songs, . . . . • 420 B. Passages of Enoch Bearing on Chap. 2, etc., of Wisdom, ...... 421 C. The Syriac Hexaplar, ..... 423 INDICES— I. Index of Greek Words, .... 4^5 II. Index of Matters and Persons, . . . 432 III. Translations of the Old Latin Version, . . 436 INTRODUCTION § 1. Wisdom and the Hebrew Canon. The study of the non-canonical books of the Old Testament should be at the present day of peculiar interest. The progress of Biblical criticism, with the introduction of sounder methods of interpretation, has inclined us to reconsider the subject of inspiration, and the ques- tion may well be raised whether there are not books outside the Canon which are more deserving of inclusion than some of those which have gained admission.'' Of such outside works the book of Wisdom stands out foremost with its noble statement of the doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul, its indignant denunciation of idolatry at a time when such denun- ciation may have been dangerous, and its firm stand against the Epicureanism which was sapping the very foundations of Jewish morality and belief. So exalted indeed are the sentiments of the writer that he has been, as we shall see, claimed as one of the fore- most teachers of the early Christian Church. On what ground his book was never admitted to the Canon we do not know. Possibly he was after all too late; possibly his unfortunate parade of Greek learning disgusted the Jewish doctors. » Ryle, Canon of 0. T., 171. Cheyne, Joi and Solomon, 280, states that ' when after the destruction of Jerusalem Jewish learning reorganised itself at Jamnia (4J leagues south of Jaffa), the view that the Song and Koheleth "defile the hands," i.e. are holy Scriptures, was broxiglit forward in a synod held about A.D. 90, and finally sanctioned in a second synod held a.d. 118. The arguments urged on both sides were such as belong to an uncritical age. No attempt was made to penetrate into the spirit and object of Kolieleth, but test-passages were singled out. The heretically sounding words in 11 Si* were at first held by some to be decisive against the claim of canonioity ; but, we are told, when the " wise men " took the close of the verse into consideration (" but know that for all this God will bring thee into the judgment") they exclaimed, '-'Solomon has spoken appropriately."' Dr. Cheyne adds (281) that 'there was even as late as a,d. 90 a chance for any struggling book (e.g. Sirach) to find its A 2 INTRODUCTION It is, moreover, high time that the value of the so-called Apocryphal books (we shall use the term ' apocryphic ' as not implying the idea of falsification or forgery which attaches to the other word) should be recognised, not merely on the ground of their intrinsic merit, but also because they represent a transition stage between the doctrines of the Old and New Testaments. The more the nature of the gap be- tween these has been recognised, and the more clearly the distinct points of view which the Old and the New Dispensations afford have been set forth, the more men's attention has been directed to the Apocrypha. Under this name we include not only the books recog- nised as deutero-canouical by Jerome and the Fathei;s, but also the rich stores of kindred literature which modern research has unearthed or recalled to notice. Among the former ' Wisdom ' easily holds the first place. Valued by the early Christians for the beauty of its dic- tion and of its ideas, it now occupies a higher place as introducing us to the mind of a man who stood at the very turning-point of belief ; a Jew so advanced in his opinions that inconsiderate critics have even called him Christian. Of this intermediate literature we recognise three distinct classes or currents, answering to the local conditions of the dispersed Jews. We have first the purely Palestinian school, represented by Siracides, 1 Maccabees, Judith, and the book of Jubilees. They keep to the old ways ; their one concern is with the observance of the Law and the respect due to the Temple. They exhibit no ideas with regard to a future state, and they cling to the old doctrine of retribution meted out by God to the righteous and to the wicked in this life. In the way into the Canon.' But Budde {Althebr. Lit., p. 2) goes further. As late as 125 A.D., he says, there was a dispute as to the admission of the Song and Eccle- siastes. It is true that we find no mention of the rejected candidature of any book ; hut the Rabbis seem to have proceeded on two principles— (1) that books which claimed an authorship older than Moses {e.g, Enoch) were not genuine ; (2) that Apocalyptic works must be excluded. For this latter there was a rea- son ; Christian writers had already begun to employ such books for their own ends. See also Bertholet in the same volume, p. 338, on the use of the Jewish Apocalypses by Christian writers, and F. C. Porter in Hast. D. B., i. 114a. So Corn, k Lapide says that the Jews rejected Wisdom because the death of Christ was there predicted. For the views of the Western Fathers on the Canon, see the full and clear account in Salmon's Introduction to the Speaker's Apocrypha, vol. i. pp. xxv-xxviii,'and Bissell, Introd. 51 sqq., cf. Aug. de Doctr. Ghr., ii. 8, who practically maintains the absolute rightof the Church to saywhatis canoni- cal and what is not ; and he is speaking of O.T. as well as N.T. WISDOM AND THE HEBREW CANON 3 book o£ Judith in particular we have the old idea of Tahwe as the national God, protecting his own at the expense of other nations, and even countenancing the base assassination of Holofernes as he had countenanced that of Sisera. To the second class belong those works which, though chiefly of Palestinian origin, are deeply affected by views imbibed during the captivity from the followers of Zoroaster. These are 2 Maccabees, Baruch, the additions to Daniel, and, most of all, on the score of local origin as well as of content, Tobit. In these books we find the Resurrection of the Just plainly set forth, coupled with elements which had but little influence in the ancient Jewish theology. We have a doctrine of angels approaching to that of mediaeval times, accompanied by a similar development of belief as to demonic interference ; we have hints of miraculous interference in the most trifling affairs of domestic life ; and we have the efficacy of prayer for the dead plainly stated. We have, in short, signs of inter- mediate opinion ; a distinct variation from Old Testament doctrine ; a distinct approximation to that of the New. But most important of all is the Jewish- Alexandrian class, which represents not merely the growth of Jewish opinion, unfertile in itself and yet capable of development when assisted from without, but also the assimilation of Hellenic elements. To this class we may assign without hesitation 1 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasses, and Wisdom. On the merits and value of our book the most diverse opinions have been held and expressed. The storm of controversy which began with the decision of the Bible Society to exclude the Apocrypha from their editions in 1827 involved ' Wisdom ' in the general denunciation of books as widely different from it as 'Bel and the Dragon.'" We can here only refer to the great dispute over the retention of the Apocrypha which raged in Germany in the early fifties of the last century. Con- servative Lutherans like Stier and Hengstenberg, as well as liberal theologians like Bleek, were rightly in favour of the toleration of the books on precisely the grounds laid down in our own Articles. But the great value of the discussion was that it suggested a deeper study of the Apocrypha than had hitherto been known. The work of its opponents, like Keerl, is most important. With regard to English scholars of the time, one can only suppose that their knowledge of ' Wisdom ' in particular was most superficial. Brucker's History of Philosophy was their text-book, and when Brucker insisted on dis- " For specimens of the unmeasured language used with regard to the Apo- crypha ii* general, of. Fairweather in Hast. Z). A, v. 273. 4 INTRODUCTION covering Platonism, Stoicism, the anima mundi, and what not, in every chapter of 'Wisdom,' they blindly follovred him. Burton's Bampion Lectures are a good example of such criticism, and Payne- Smith's words (Bamp. Led., p. 368) are worth quoting : ' It is in the book of Wisdom that we find the open expression of those philosophi- cal opinions which finally ruined the Alexandrian school. . . . Nothing can be more unsound than its philosophy, and it did introduce into the Church principles contrary to the teaching of the New Testament.' He cites three points : (1) the eternity of matter, (2) the pre-existence of souls, (3) the inherent badness of matter and of the body. But the extremest views naturally were those of the Evangelical school in the Church. We may cite one specimen from Gurney's Dictionary of the Bible (1828) : ' Sundry phrases of it seem taken oat of the prophets and even the New Testament. Some will have Philo the Jew to be the author of it, but he seems rather to have been a fraudulent Chris- tian. He talks as if souls were lodged in bodies according to their former merits ; makes the murder of Abel the cause of the flood ; re- presents the Egyptians as plagued by their own idols, though it is certain they never worshipped frogs or locusts ; and calls the divine Logos or second person of the Trinity a rapoior and stream.' On the other hand, appreciation at the present day goes too far, as when Andr^ (Les Apocryphes de VAncien Test., Florence, 1903, p. 312) says that ' Wisdom ' contains the first attempt at a systematic Jewish philosophy. Theocratic Monotheism has no place for philosophy ; and Pseudo-Solomon is nothing if not unsystematic. Nevertheless, the book has been repeatedly used in the Christian Church as of evidential value. It was employed in the Trinitarian controversies, in which the attributes of Wisdom were connected sometimes with the person of the Son, sometimes with that of the Holy Ghost. Methodius used Chap. 4 in pleading for the monastic and conventual life. Chap. 2 was quoted against the Jews to support the view of a suflering and not a triumphant Messiah. Chap. 3 is an encouragement for martyrdom. St. Augustine used the words as to the inherited guilt of the Canaanites in his argument against the Pelagian heresy ; and the ' idolatry ' chapters were naturally quoted in the Iconoclastic disputes {Church Quart. Rev. , Apr. 1879). Lastly, the pseudo-Dionysius in the treatise De divinis nominibus uses the passage in 8^ ipaurris iyev6fa)v tov koKXovs avrrjs as a justification of the erotic or passionate form of devotion, of which enough is said in the notes on the text. The book was continually used by the Christian DATE OF COMPOSITION ; Fathers for centuries, during wliich, according to Freudenthal,^ it remained unrecognised by the Jews. § 2 Date of Composition. The question of date is in the case of the book of Wisdom of great importance, and that for two reasons : the first concerning its position in the development of Jewish Eschatology ; the other affecting the question of the purpose which the author had in view in composing it. We may here summarise briefly what will be more fully treated of hereafter. (1) If the date of the writing be pushed as far back as the earliest period assigned to it by any reasonable critics — say 200 B.C. — then it represents a most remarkable step forward in the doctrine of the Resurrection and of a future life. If, on the other hand, we accept the opinion, now more and more advocated, that the book was com- posed in the reign of Caligula (37-41 a.d.),'' then it contains little more than the formulation of a belief already current among a large section of the Jewish people ; " a belief in the Eesurrection of the Dead and the Life Everlasting. (2) Again, if we accept the earlier date, the persecutions indicated must almost certainly be those alleged to have taken place under the Egyptian Ptolemies. No authoritative writer considers that the oppression of the Jews by the kings of Syria can be referred to. But if Egyptian persecution be in question, then the purpose of the book is little more than an exhortation to hold fast by God and his Providence, and to resist the temptations of idolatry. If, however, we adopt the latter date, there is much ground for accept- ing the theory that 'Wisdom' has, to begin with, a distinct and definite aim : that it is directed against those renegade Jews who, embracing heathenism, had risen high in imperial favour and held great offices « J. Q. R., iii. (1891) 722 sqc[. ^ Bousset, Theolog. Rundschau, 1902, p. 185. ° The whole question of the differences of the opposing sects of Pharisees and Sadducees, and in particular of their antagonistic views on the subject of the Resurrection, is involved in obscurity. Of. Gratz, Oeschichle der Jxiden, iii. 647 sqq., who thinks that the Sadducees admitted a life after death in some form, but not future rewards and punishments. There can be little doubt that josephus is a bad authority on the subject ; he is too much concerned with the laudation of the Essenes. Yet not only Christian authority (Mk. 12 ^'^, Acts 23 «) ascribes to the Sadducees denial of the Eesurrection, but at least one Talmudic tract {Sanhedrim, 16 '', quoted by Gratz) testifies to the same effect. 6 INTRODUCTION under the Roman government. They are regarded as oppressors * (chap. 1), as epicureans (chap. 2), and as idolaters : and certainly, if this view be accepted, the purport of the book becomes clear and its violent rhetoric more justified. We turn our attention, therefore, in the first place, to this question of date. And we may at once accept the common decision that the book vras written later than the 'Septuagint' and earlier than those New Testament books in which it is quoted or referred to. The writer's acquaintance with the Greek Old Testament is plain enough, 6^ ou yap uTrocrreXetrat Trpoa-oinov 6 irdvTtav S€jiev TOV hUaiov oVi hvv v6fJ.iov /xeXertuvres, ToijTOLSTcal rots irapaTrXriaioL^, ws B.v iiTL^ddpats T^s 6.0€6ttjtqs avTwv, ol dvffffe^eiSf xpG>VTa.l, (f>d.ffK0VTe^, ^rt vxjv cefivfjyopeire irepl tCiv 5iaT€Tayp.^vtav ws rods aktjdeLas Kavdvas avTTjs TrepL€x6vTojv, kt\. Philo did not see that it was his own explaining away of the historical facts which encour- aged such apostasy. In DeMigr. Abr., §16 (the whole section), he protests against the idea that the law can be neglected on account of its spiritual signification. For an example of such ideas (the spiritual observance of the law) of. Aristeas, 234. The highest glory is ' to honour God, not with gifts and sacrifices, but by purity of soul and pious belief.' "We see here plainly the decay of belief in the purely ceremonial ordinances. For an instance of the fidelity of the apostates to their Egyptian lords, of. the case of Dositheus (3 Mace. 1 3), who saved the life of Ptolemy Philopator. Edersheim (Rist. of the Jewish .Nation, 71) makes out a good case for Tiberius Alexander in his suppression of the tumults at Alexandria. The Jews had actually attempted to set fire to the amphitheatre and destroy the multitud es therein assembled. DATE OF COMPOSITION 7 but they do not justify Parrar (4206) in saying that he ' could not have known Hebrew.' St. Paul is represented in the Acts (13 ^^-^i) as quot- ing not only the Septuagint but its peculiar translations. Yet no one argues that he did not know the original. We have, therefore, the ' date of the Septuagint ' * as fixing the earliest time at which oiir book could have been written. But this date is almost no date at all. The idea of the simultaneous or even contemporary translation of the books of the Old Testament has long ago been given up, and it is recognised that the narrowest time-limit which can be assigned to the compilation of the Greek Old Testament is that of 283-205 B.o. (the reigns of Ptolemy Philadelphus, Euergetes, and Philopator). No book of which the author can be proved to have known the Septuagint can be dated earlier than 210 B.o. On the other hand, a date, not much more definite, is fixed as the latest at which the book can have been composed, by the quotation of it by New Testament writers. The question of such quotation becomes, therefore, of considerable importance. Before entering upon it, we may dismiss in a few words the matter of the relation or want of relation between ' Wisdom ' and Philo. Philo's lifetime may be roughly put between 20 B.C. and 45 A.D., and if there were the slightest reference in him to Wisdom or in Wisdom to him, we should have some vague indication of date. But no such allusions can be traced, and we are left to the a priori conjectures of scholars. Schiiier (Jewish People, Eng. tr., 11. iii. 234) argues that, as the Pseudo- Solomon's standpoint is a preliminary step to Philo's, he must precede Philo. Farrar, on the contrary (4216), thinks that he must be later ; for, ' 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 Theoso- phist.' The argument is not without force ; but the conflicting views » It is noteworthy, though it militates against the theory of the late origin of 'Wisdom,' that the books especially quoted by Pseudo-Solomon were pre- cisely those which are supposed to have been first translated. For a clear and succinct account of the probable origin of the Septuagint, see besides Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Salmon's Introduc- tion to the Apocrypha (Speaker's Com. ), § 22. For its date cf. Schurer, Jewish People in the Time of Christ (Eng. tr.), Div. n. vol. iii. 161, 201. The earliest writer who quotes it seems to be a certain Demetrius, about 210 B.C., but even then it is possible that some books remained untranslated. Gratz (Oesch. der Jvden, iii. 623) puts Demetrius much later, and indeed refers the whole Septua- gint to a date not earlier than 160 B.o. Cf. Swete, Introduction, p. 17. 8 INTRODUCTION are almost reconciled if we suppose, as we shall find reason to do, that the two writers are nearly contemporary. In that case Farrar's further position, that we have here ' an author who was familiar with the speculations of Philo, but who regarded them from a completely independent point of view,' may be fully justified. In dealing with quotations by New Testament writers it is hardly necessary to premise that great care is necessary in eliminating all apparent correspondences which may proceed from a source common to both authors ; of this striking instances will be found in the addi- tional note on St. Paul's supposed references to Wisdom ; and, indeed, we can hardly ever be sure that such a common source does not exist in any given case. Nevertheless the resemblances of language and of ideas are here too striking to be neglected. 1. The coincidence — to call it nothing more — of the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews with that of Wisdom is remarkable, and indeed gave rise to somewhat extravagant theories, hereafter to be mentioned. A few instances will suffice. In Heb. 1 ^ the unusual phrase airavyacrjia Trj9 86^T]s avToi corresponds to Wisd. 7^' dTravyaajia (pcoros dVSi'ou, where it is applied to a-o<^ia. Again, the words Ton-or /jLeravoias in Wisd. 12 1" are repeated in Heb. 121''. Here, indeed, the verbal resemblances cease, except for naidcia in the sense of disciplinary suffering, used repeatedly in Heb. 12 """ and also in Wisd. 3 * (nmSevdevTss) ; (K^turis for the result and end of life in Heb. 13'' and Wisd. 2'', and Oepdiraiv used of Moses as the ' servant ' of the Lord in Heb. 3 ^ and Wisd. 17 ^^ the word not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament. But besides these there seem to be genuine resemblances of thought in Heb. 412.13^ Wisd. 7^^ (cf . also 1 ^), where the word "■ of God in the first case and his wisdom in the latter is spoken of as ' quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart ' ; and again the description of ' the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, not man ' in Heb. 8^ is compared with that in Wisd. 9 *, ' the holy tabernacle which thou hast prepared from the beginning.' Other supposed correspondences quoted by Plumptre {Expositor, Series 1. i. 333-9) are too vague to be of value. > Any attempt to argue (as Drummond, Philo Judceus, i. 137, seems inclined to do) that the Septuagint held a ' Logos theory' from their occasional transla- tion of nin' '13T by X670S is hopeless. They constantly render the same phrase by^WaSeoOCcf. Exod. 10™, 1 Sam. 3 1, etc.), andasFreudenthal{/.Q.7J.,iii. 723) remarks, they were wretched translators with no knowledge of Greek philo- sophy. Drummond is compelled to say (139) that the ' word of the Lord to some extent stands in opposition to the later idea of the Logos.' As a matter of fact, has it any connection with it at all ? DATE OF COMPOSITION 9 We turn as of course to the sententious and practical Epistle of St. James for references to the 'sapiential' literature current in his time, and we are not disappointed. But naturally he makes most use of the wise maxims of the sou of Sirach, from whom he seems at times to quote directly : e.g. 1 '', ' Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God,' compared with Ecclus. 15", 'Say not thou, It is through the Lord that I fell away,' etc. There are no such close correspondences with the book of Wisdom ; but Dr. Mayor, in his edition of the Epistle (pp. Ixxv-vi), has collected some ten instances which certainly seem to show that the writer knew the work of the Pseudo-Solomon and was imbued with his views. The oppression of the just man, the value of suffering as a means of education, the strong condemnation of slander and backbiting, are ideas common* to both ; but the verbal resemblances are few indeed, except perhaps KOToXaXeii/ and KardXaKia in Jas. 4" and Wisd. 1", while in one instance (Jas. 4 compared with Wisd. 2 ') the New Testament writer seems to adopt the very view which Pseudo-Solomon condemns : the likeness between chap. 4" and Wisd. 2* is very close indeed. But St. James uses the very phraseology of Wisdom's epicureans to rebuke the far-reaching schemes of avaricious men. He refers to Wisdom, and that in terms which might well have been used by the Pseudo- Solomon (3 ") ; and there is even a hint of a personification, but none of a separate entity. But the most remarkable verbal correspondence with Wisdom to be found in the New Testament, apart from those passages of St. Paul where the similarity is explained by derivation from a common source, is undoubtedly to be found in 1 Pet. 1 ^■'', compared with Wisd. 3 ^■^. A parallel arrangement will make this clear. 1 Peter. Wisdom. iv £0 ayoKkiaa-Be oklyov apri fl K.a\ Skiya naiSevdivTes fiiyoKa Seov \v7rrjBevTec iv TroiKiXoir evepyeTri6riv avToiis Kol evpfv avTovs d^cas eavToC" Trjs ■n-ia-Teas iroXvnpoTipov ;(puo-iov as XP^"''"' ^v x'"''^"''"'?P''y iSoinp.aa-ev Tov d7roX\vp.epov Blcl -irvpos de avrovs koI o)S oXoKOLpnapa ovaias doKipa^op4vov eupeBrj els eiraivov Trpoo'eSc^aro avTovs. kt\. " Here, however, the resemblance in phraseology to Wisiiora is as nothing compared to the exact similarity between Jas. 3 and Ecclus. 28. The two should be read side by side to appreciate the likeness. io INTRODUCTION Compared with this, the verbal similarity of 1 Pet. 2 i^ iv rjjiipa iiruTKoiT-ris and Wisd. 3' iv Katpa ijn.crK07rijs alrmv is unimportant, and indeed both phrases are probably reminiscences of Jer. 6 " ev Kalpca iiritTKOTrrjS aircov aTroXovvrau Of the relation of the prologue of the Fourth Gospel to the book of Wisdom various views will be taken, according as the indebtedness of the Evangelist to the Alexandrine doctrine of the Logos is affirmed or denied, but one strong verbal similarity may be noted. In Joh. 1 Xdyos ^v irpbs Tov deov may be compared with the phrase used of 2o(f)ta in Wisd. 8^, a-vp^iaxriv 6eov i'^ova-a, and again Joh. 1' wavTO St' avTov iyiv€TO with Wisd. 9 ^ o Troirjaas Ta iravra ev \6ya trov ; but other supposed correspondences are either references to the same subject, as Joh. 3'* and Wisd. 16^ (the brazen serpent), or mere coin- cidences of phrase, like Joh. 3 '^ and Wisd. 9 '^. Mere identity of words like (rrjpela koi ripaxa in Joh. 4 *' and in Wisd. 8 ', 10 '' proves little more than the use of the words 'signs and wonders,' by, say, two Elizabethan writers would do ; and the same may be said of x"/"* KOI tKfos in 1 Tim. 1^ and in Wisd. 3^4 '«. The quotations of Wisdom in an Apostolic Father, Clement of Rome, can have little weight in determining our estimate of the date of ' Pseudo-Solomon,' but they are of interest for other reasons, and may be dealt with here. The first and most generally quoted is from Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 17, ris ipei aira ri e'lroirjcras ; fj ris avrKTrfjor^Tai Ta Kparei Trjs laxvos avTov ; This may certainly come direct from Wisd. 12'^, t'ls yap epei tI cTroiria-as ; ^ Ti'f avTi| MahafTy (Egypt, iv. 145) takes a peculiar view of 3 Mace. He thinks It ' is so far no invention, that this king (Philopator) set himself to limit the Influence of the Jews in Egypt.' They took their revenge by propagating stories against his character, and the author of 3 Mace, merely brought these traditions together. On the exact date of the book cf Bertholet in Biidde's Althehrdische Liiteratur, p. 403. " It is quite possible that Mahaffy [Egypt, iv. 183, 201) may have gone too far in extolling the capabilities of Physcon and minimising his vices : DATE OF COMPOSITION 13 If, therefore, the book of Wisdom (its Egyptian origin being pre- sumed) refers to any persecution at all,'' it must be to the one of which we have real historical details — that under Caligula. For of any public oppression of Egyptian Jews between the time of Ptolemy Physcon and that of the half-demented son of Germanicus there is no trace; on the contrary, they seem to have enjoyed the favour of the Roman conquerors. But the circumstances of the Caligulan persecution certainly correspond remarkably to the indications conveyed by Pseudo-Solomon. These circumstances must be briefly narrated. In the later years of Tiberius, young Agrippa, grandson of Herod the Great and Mariamne (the ' Herod ' of Acts 12), who had been educated at Rome, was a persona grata at the emperor's court. After a series of not very creditable adventures in Palestine, unnecessary to discuss here, he had incurred the jealous tyrant's displeasure, chiefly on account of his devotion to the young Caligula. On the accession of the latter, whose companion and favourite he had been, Agrippa received from him the title of king. This distinction of a Jewish prince seems to have excited the anger of the Greeks of Alexandria, already pro- voked by the commercial success of their Israelite fellow-citizens, and a series of virulent pamphlets against the abhorred nation appeared (Gratz, Gesch. d. Juden, iii. 346-352), to which, it would seem, we owe the origin of the fables of the worship of the ass and of the expulsion of the Jews from Egypt as ' lepers ' in the time of the Pharaohs. One of the last of the authors of such writings was Josephus' antagonist, the worthless Apion. The Jews were for a long time strong enough, under their half-independent 'Arabarch,' Alexander Lysimachos, brother of the celebrated Philo, and a friend of Agrippa, to defy their enemies. But Flaccus the Roman governor was suspect at court as a former friend of Tiberius, and, in constant fear of denunciation, dared not oppose the fury of the Alexandrian mob, who, on the occasion of but, apart from the silence of the inscriptions and papyri, there are serious objections even to the possibility of a general persecution of Jews in this reign. Cf. with regard to the migration to Egypt of the younger Siraoh (Ecclus. prologue), Griitz, iii. 54 n. Stories of intended massacres of Jews ' in the circus ' are found in Josephus, Ant. xvii. vi. 5 andxviii. iii. 1, but to suppose that the Physcon legend is copied thence is an unwarranted supposition. " Reuss (Introd., fil3) remarks on these general references to oppression: ' Nous demandons a quelle epoque des plaintes de ce genre auraient &ti tout a fait hors de propos, si Ton tient compte de la difference des localites ou elles pouvaient se produire et des dispositions individuelles des personnes qui pouvaient les formuler." 14 INTRODUCTION an unlucky visit of Agrippa to Alexandria in the summer of a.d. 38, treated that prince with open insult, and presently, breaking into the Jews' places of prayer, set up therein images of Caligula.^ Flaccus, then, was base enough to withdraw from the persecuted people its ancient rights of citizenship. The Jews were driven into one quarter of the city, called ' Delta,' ^ and their abandoned homes sacked, though few, if any, lives seem to have been taken. Flaccus was suddenly recalled to Rome in September a.d. 38. He had of course exceeded his powers in the cancelling of the citizen-rights of the Jews, and while under his successor order was being re-established in Alexandria, an embassy was organised, including Philo the Philosopher and his brother the Arabarch Alexander, to proceed to Rome and to plead for the restoration of the lost rights. The fortunes of this deputation are of no great importance to this narrative, but the account of Cali- gula's behaviour, as given by Philo, produces a strong impression as to the incipient mania of the emperor. This mania showed itself fully when on his return from his imaginary 'conquests' in Germany he demanded from his subjects recognition as a god (Aug.-Sept., a.d. 40). This gave the Alexandrian populace a fresh opportunity for seeking to enforce idolatry on the Jews, and the Roman governor demanded of these obedience to the Imperial orders." The great bulk of them proved loyal to their religion, but it is to this period that we must assign the apostasy not only of many of the baser multitude,* but of one at least of their chiefs who was afterwards " The authority for most of this account is Philo's book in Flaccum, with regard to which, and its historic value, cf. Gratz, iii. 681. He decides against the authenticity of the Legatio ad Gaium. >> The 'Delta' was simply one of the five quarters into which Alexandria was divided, named after the first letters of the Greek alphabet. See the map at the end of Mahaffy's Egypt, vol. iv. It has no connection with the ' Delta' of the Nile. » The version of the governor's message as given hy Philo {de Somniis, ii. § 18) condemns itself. It is conceived on Hebraic lines, and is more like the harangue of an ancient prophet of Israel than the plain command of a sober Roman administrator. Was it possibly the work of a renegade Jew serving as scribe to the governor ? ■1 Philo, de Poenitentia, § 2, gives us his opinion of apostates in language not entirely unlike that of Wisdom. ' One sees those who apostatise from the laws profligate, shameless, unjust, ignoble, leanwitted, rancorous, companions of lying and perjury, selling their freedom for meat and drink and sweetmeats, and fair seeming ; given to the enjoyments of the belly and that which comes after.' DATE OF COMPOSITION 15 to achieve a baleful reputation. Tiberius Julius Alexander, son of the faithful Arabarch, and nephew of Philo, now went over to the side which promised high oflSce and distinction ; wealth was probably his already. It is only necessary to read his uncle's lucubrations to discover an incentive to, if not a justification for, his acts. The per- sistent allegorising away of Old Testament history by learned men would naturally produce among cultivated Jews the impression that the law itself was after all symbolic only. If the history was only one long allegory, then all the ordinances of religion. Sabbaths, sacrifices, even circumcision itself, might be explained away; and when persecution came there was none of the obstinate old Jewish zeal for the law to resist it. To revive such zeal the so-called Third Book of Maccabees was probably written. Caligula's insane attempt at self-deification failed. When it came to a question of intruding his image and his worship into the temple at Jerusalem, his own governor, Petronius, remonstrated with him, and before his reply insisting on the mad scheme could be received he was murdered. Under his successor, Claudius, who owed his elevation in part to the diplomacy of Agrippa, the Jews of Egypt and of Palestine alike enjoyed a period of rest and even favour, which lasted till the death of Agrippa in a.d. 44. It is necessary to give these details in order to place before the reader the precise surroundings amid which the book of Wisdom was probably written. A sore persecution had just been endured ; a per- secution 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 sub- stitute severe rebuke for furious complaint. All these conditions the i6 INTRODUCTION period from A.i). 41 to 44 presents, and an examination of the book of Wisdom confirms the belief that it was then written. To take the first point : that of a sore persecution but not to the death. We may refer with confidence to the description of the oppression of the just man in 2 '"-^o. There is no question of furious elephants here ; simply of attacks involving loss, misery, and possibly bodily outrage. Of the calumnies which had instigated the persecu- tion, that which had obtained the widest circulation, apart from the fables as to asses' heads and leprosy, was that of the hatred of the Jews for all mankind except their own nation, a belief which was common certainly among the Romans." It is probably alluded to in Wisd. 2 15, and is controverted in 12 i^, ' the just man must be a lover of mankind.' The allusion to the deification of living men is plain enough in 14 '8'^. ' By the commandments of princes the graven images received worship, and when men could not honour them in presence because they dwelt afar off, imagining the likeness from afar they made a visible image of the king whom they honoured, that by their zeal they might flatter the absent as if present.' This passage is referred by those who argue for an early origin of the book to the deification of the Ptolemies. But such deification seems certain in very few cases : possibly only in that of Ptolemy i. (Mahaffy, Egypt, iv. 102), and the persons deified are here not in Egypt but at a distance. The judges who decide the destinies of Israel are those who dwell at the ' ends of the earth ' ; who ' make their boast in multitudes of nations' (6 ^), an expression which seems plainly to denote a wide sway, like that of the Roman emperors. So, too, Solomon's supposed assertion (7 1"^) of his very human origin seems intended to rebuke the claims to superior nature of even an Imperial Csesur. Again, the allusion to apostate Jews of the school of Koheleth is plain indeed in 2 '■" (see notes there), and that Jews and not aliens are meant is indicated clearly in 2 i^, ' upbraideth us with sins against the law, and layeth to » Cicero, pro Flacco, § 69 (Judaeorum religio) 'a splendore hujus imperii, gravitate nominis vestri, majorum institutis abhorrebat. ' Juvenal, writing in later days, when the desperate defence of Jerusalem had exasperated Rome, writes of the Jewish religion (xiv. 103, 104) that it taught non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra colenti quaesituin ad fontem solos deducere verpos. And cf. Mayor's notes on the passage. OBJECT OF THE BOOK 17 our charge sins against our discipline.' Gratz, indeed, finds in these verses allusion to the baser passions of the mob of Alexandria, but surely the whole passage refers to the debaucheries of wealthy and cultured profligates. But the most striking reference to contemporary matters is that in 19 ^ as to the rights of citizenship : ' these first welcomed with feastings and then afflicted with dreadful toils them that had already shared with them in the sam,e rights.' Apparently, it is true, this refers to the behaviour of the ancient Egyptians, but it seems undoubtedly to be a guarded allusion to the action of Flaccus already mentioned. The immediate danger of the vengeance of that governor had passed, but some respect even to the fallen statue of Zeus is always advisable. No other epoch, surely, can furnish correspondences so exact and so undeniable ; and we may be satisfied to accept the conclusion of Farrar (pp. 421-2), arrived at more than twenty years ago, that the book of Wisdom was written in the decade after the death of Christ. All subsequent investigations have only served to con- firm this theory. § 3. Object of the Book. The question of the purpose which the author had in view is again in great measure dependent on the date which we assign to his book. That its main obj ect is polemic cannot be doubted ; the first six chapters and the ten last are plainly so, though, as Eichhorn long ago perceived, they are directed against two different forms of unbelief — Epicurean- ism and downright debased idolatry. The three intervening chapters certainly proceed on somewhat different lines, though the account of Solomon's birth at least may well have a politico-religious significance. The general object of their introduction we shall examine later on. 1. If the book be assigned to a Ptolemaic age, early or late, the persons addressed in the exordium (1^) must be heathen princes of some kind, and by them the writer could hardly expect his book to be read or regarded. A way out of this difliculty is to suppose (as Keuss, Introd., p. 504, suggests) that this address to other rulers was a mere piece of colouring intended to impart probability to the fiction of Solomon's authorship. It would be proper for a king to address kings ; therefore let us begin with a flourish of trumpets — an exhortation to righteousness addressed by one sovereign prince to his peers. Only it B i8 INTRODUCTION is to be noted that, in contradistinction to the opening words of Ecclesiastes, our book at first maljes no distinct claim to Solomonic origin.'' That comes later on. But this difficulty disappears and others are explained if we accept the date now generally regarded as the true one. In that case the 'rulers' referred to are certainly 'judges of the earth,' and men of power enough to persecute ; but they are apostate Jews, who have attained to that power by accepting a formal paganism, though at heart they are Epicureans'^ of a type not unknown among the Israelites of earlier days. Such, at all events, is the judgment of the Pseudo- Solomon, though a reference to the career of the most famous of the apostates, Tiberius Alexander, nephew of Philo, will display him as no vindictive renegade, but as a just if stern Roman governor. His sanguinary suppression of a Jewish tumult in Alexandria (Josephus, B. J., II. xviii. 7, 8) belongs to a period later than any to which ' Wis- dom' can be assigned. He had considerable influence, as holding Egypt, in the elevation of Vespasian to the throne (Tac, Mist., ii. 74, 79). One peculiarity at least of the Pseudo-Solomonic presentation of Jewish history is explained if we adopt this hypothesis, viz., the extra- ordinary apologetic attitude adopted by the writer in the later chapters towards the sins of Israel — those very sins which are so repeatedly de- nounced in the Pentateuch and the Prophets ; in the first case, their rebellions against God ; in the second, their own idolatries. It is prob- able that these very reproaches against the character of the Israelites, and the fact that they had not been loyal, had had their share in alien- ating cultured Jews from the religion of their fathers ; and it would be with a view to bring them back that the writer glosses over such sins in the most unwarrantable way. * 2. It is possible, however, to explain this smoothing away of the ■■ If we adopt this theory, it would not be amiss to describe the book as a pole- mical pamphlet, directed against Jewish apostates (1-6), and followed by 'pieces justificatives ' (10-19), with three chapters added afterwards, possibly to secure a circulation for the book, or possibly to set forth new views of the author. Gfrorer, Philo, ii. 206, saw that it must be the actual rulers of the country who were addressed. ' Bruch, Weisheitslehre der Hebraer, 338, is fettered by his view of the early date of ' Wisdom. ' He thinks the persons rebuked are merely neglectful Jews *ho disregarded the ordinances. He is somewhat bafiBed, however, by the confusion of such persons with actual heathen in the denunciatory passages 1 B sqq. , and chaps. 2-6. OBJECT OF THE BOOK 19 difflculties of ancient Jewish history on other grounds. It has heen held, notably by Siegfried in his early work on Philo (1875)/ and more recently by Bertholet'' and others, that the book was written with the view o£ attracting proselytes to Judaism from among the cultured Greeks. Two grounds for this theory are apparently relied upon : first, that the book is permeated by Platonic and Stoic philosophy ; and secondly, that Pseudo-Solomon seeks to explain away those signs and wonders of the Old Testament which might excite Gentile incre- dulity, in the manner of Philo. Now, with respect to permeation by Platonic and Stoic ideas, the expressions which distinctly indicate even an acquaintance with those Ideas may, with one doubtful exception (the creation of the world out of ' formless matter,' in chap. 11), be regarded as existing only in chaps. 7-9. The remainder of the book consists of one long denunciation of that paganism which was at least the oflBcial creed even of the Greek philosophers. The first six chapters may be regarded as directed against their disbelief in immortality, and the last ten against their Idolatry. The dying Socrates had ordered a cock to be sacrificed to Asklepios. » Philo, p. 23 : ' To reconcile the opposition of Jew and Greek, Pseudo-Solo- mon played a lucky card in the choice of " 'Wisdom," which, on account of its variety of aspects and meanings, could vary its colour, at times as Graeco-philo- sophical, at others as Jewish-theological. It was easy to bring into the concep- tion of ffoipla all that Greek philosophy offered of truth, while Proverbs 8 afforded the possibility of making "Wisdom the central idea of Jewish religion.' i" In Budde's Althebriiische Litteratur, 413: 'To address heathen, and to convert heathen, and, as it seems, primarily not the lower circles of heathen, is the real purpose of our book, which has heen questioned, but wrongly.' Siegfried's argument that ' Sophia ' was put forward as a kind of neutral ground on which Jews and Gentiles could unite seems to depend on the identifi- cation of that 'Sophia' with the Logos, which may well have been a timid con- cession of Philo to Polytheism. But is the Logos identical with Sophia in Philo ? The passages quoted by Siegfried himself (PhUo, p. 222) are, lilce everything else in Philo, most indefinite. Wisdom is at one time ' Mother of the Logos '{!), De Profugis, § 20, Tarpos /Uv OeoO 8s Kal aviiwavToiv iari iraT-fjp, firirpbs di (TOlas 5i' ■§! TCI SKa. 'ffKBev e/s ■yiveaw. But, again, in Quod deter, potiori insid., § 31, we have a confused account of the rock which Moses smote, first as Sophia and then as the Logos. Philosophical argument on such data is absurd. The one thing of which we can be certain is that the So(pla of the book of Wisdom was a purely Jewish Sophia: she has, for example, no concern with the offspring of mixed marriages (Wisd. ch. 4). 20 INTRODUCTION But, above all, we find in the last ten chapters an arrogant particu- larism,'' the enunciation of which, if credited, might recall the apostate to the fold, but could only disgust and repel the cultured pagan. No idea of God can be more narrow than that propounded in 11 "> ff. and 12 1 ff. It almost takes us back to the conception of Yah we as a tribal god. He is father of the Jews alone, but to the heathen a stern god. And so far, as Bertholet points out (p. 413), we do get an idea of a world-destiny of Israel which conflicts with particularism : God is at least God of all the earth. But when we examine particulars we find this God no impartial ruler. The sufferings which came upon the Jews are but^ a fatherly correction (11 1" tovtovi fiiv yap i>s warfip vov- derav eBoKlfiacras). With the heathen sufferings mean outpourings of Divine wrath (^eyvcoaav nws iv opyrj Kpivofifvoi atre/Sei? ej3a(ravL^ovTo., 11 ) and a sign of judgment (ws- airoropos PaaiXeiis KaTa8iKLaC(i>v)- Sinning Jews are by punishment freed from evil, but the sinning Canaanites God hates (12'^, tovs naKaiovs-OiKrjropas ttjs dytas o'ov yrjs p-i(T-q(ras . . . e^ovkr)6r]s anoKfcrai), and roots them out for their sins. To this repellent picture is added a detail which reflects an ancient Jewish doctrine: that of exact and corresponding compensation for sin which finds its first expression in the words ' whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed,' and which persisted, through the Christian apocalyptic literature (cf. Rev. Petri, §§ 12, 13, etc.), to the time of Dante. The general principle is set forth in 11 '", ' by what things a man sinneth, by these he is punished ' ; but we note that there is here an advance on Old Testament ideas : it is not merely the quantitative penalty — heavy punishment for heavy sins— that is here suggested, but an actual qualitative retribution, which the author proceeds to describe in detail. " Cf. 4 Bsdr. 655, 7", 913; Apoc. Bar. (Syr.), 14 ^ 15', where we are told that the world was created for Israel's behoof. •> Cf. 2 Maoc. 6i«i5. 'In the case of other nations tlie Sovereign Lord doth with long-suffering forbear, nntil that he punisli tliem when they have attained to the full measure of their sins ; but not so judged He as touching us . . . He never withdraweth His mercy from us ; but though He chasteneth with calamity, yet doth He never forsake His own people. ' This also appears to be the teach- ing of the Psalms of Solomon. Good and evil suffer alike ; but for the wicked misfortune is the cause of their final destruction, while the righteous reeorfnises the chastening hand of God and is full of hope of iinal salvation : Berthofet p 366. Cf. especially Psalm 3 ■*, oi)k 6\iyupTicrei Si/catos iraiSeuA^epos iirb Kuplov. The whole of the Psalm is concerned with waldfia. Cf also Ps. 10 2, ^^^^.-^j ^ k6mos Tols viropAvovffi TratSeiaj*. OBJECT OF THE BOOK 21- (a) The Egyptians worship beasts : therefore they are punished through the very beasts which they worshipped. From a comparison of 16' Sia TOVTO 8i' Ofioiav eKoKdaBrjcrav d^lois'^ Kol 81a ■n'S.rjdovs KvmhaKav i^a It should be noted that Hitzig in the Kuregef. Handbuch on Bcclesiastes, p. 125, actually endeavoured to maintain that Wisdom was earlier in date of composition than Koheleth. Cf. Wright, Eohehth, p. 70, and CLejne, Jol and Solomon, p. 279, n. 1, who remarks that this is 'plainly impossible in tte light of the history of dogma ' ; not a very certain proof of anything. Cf . , however, Ir. Cheyne's later work, Jewish Religious Life after the Exile, p. 192, where he ttiU maintains, as far as possible, the unity of Bcclesiastes, 24 INTRODUCTION the ground, perhaps, of its inclusion in the Canon of Scripture) contained something better than the dreary philosophy of a man who had no hope In tlie next world— did not, indeed, believe in the other world— and very little in this: whose theory of life was literally summed up in the words ' let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.' The attempts of Dr. Cheyne (in his Joh and Sol07non), wrestling hard with his critical instincts, to claim something like coherence for the book, and something like a conscience for its author, represent the last struggle between scholarship and the desire to justify a book which in its present form does contain a number of passages not only edifying but almost sublime. Unfortunately, it is pretty certain that ' Koheleth ' never wrote those passages. That the book of Ecclesiastes has been extensively manipulated with the view of making it orthodox, hardly any theological scholar of the present day will question. It Is not necessary to adopt Siegfried's exact anatomy of the work, verse by verse, on rather fanciful lines. But the obviously contradictory passages in it, which have given rise to such theories as those of the ' Two Voices ' (Bradley, Ecclesiastes), the 'note-book' containing occasional jottings down of inconsistent thoughts (Cheyne), and the dislocation of the leaves of an original manuscript (Bickell), show plainly that we have not the book in the form in which it first appeared. In what form it lay before the author of ' Wisdom ' we cannot say. Here, again, the undecided question of his own date renders our conjectures uncertain. Gregg, who assigns to 'Wisdom' a date somewhere about 100 B.C., questions if Ecclesiastes could even have penetrated to Egypt by that time ; but this objection the generally accepted date for the later book will obviate. If ' Wisdom ' lived soon after Koheleth, he may have possessed a copy without the miti- gating interpolations. But even if he had the work before us in its present state, he would find matter enough for indignation. It is only an ultra-conservative clinging to the reputation of the Preacher that can attribute the hostility of the second Pseudo-Solomon to a ' current misinterpretation ' (Plumptre). That ' the resemblances between Wisdom and the Greek version of Ecclesiastes are very few and doubtful' (Gregg) is only verbally true. And we have still the ques- tion whether the book stood alone, or did not rather represent a whole body of writings of the same class which might serve as text-books for the Epicurean Jew. Even supposing, then, that the author of Wisdom had the book of OBJECT OF THE BOOK 25 Koheleth before him in the form in which we possess it to-day, three points in its teaching must disgust and irritate him as a right think- ing Jew. The first two are fully brought out by Dr Cheyne : these are the surrender of the claim of Israel to be God's chosen people ; secondly, the denial both of the immortality of the soul and, if the learned professor is right, also the resurrection of the dead,* and indeed of any after world at all.'' From the third charge, that of the teaching of downright Hedonism, the apologists of Koheleth have always endeavoured to defend him : their defence is based chiefly on disputed passages." To talie the points in order : the name of God is used 29 times in Koheleth, but always in the form ' Elohim,' the Creator : never once does he employ the name of ' Yahwe,' which only the Jew was privi- leged to invoke as that of his protecting God. There is no mention from beginning to end of the book of God's special mercies to Israel, or of the character of Israel as the chosen people, or of the natural antagonism to heathenism which is not wanting even in Esther— indeed, forms the keynote of that book. 'Koheleth' might almost have been written by a pagan.'' » On this point see Cheyne's reference to Griitz (Ibid. , p. 301), which must be read in the light of recent investigations into Jewish eschatology. 'The doctrine (of Immortality) was not of native Jewish origin, but imported from Alexandria, and was the source of the ascetic gloom opposed by Koheleth. Koheleth's denial of the Immortality of the Soul does not, according to Gratz, involve the denial of the Eesurrection of the Body, the Resurrection being regarded in early Judaism as a new creative act.' Dr. Cheyne very naturally questions this statement. ii Bousset {Religion des Judenthums, p. 287), though he does not acknowledge that the author of Wisdom believed in any resurrection of the dead, yet recognises the defence in Wisd. 2^1 of the broader doctrine of immortality as against Koheleth. " Not always, however ; Tyler, Ecclesiastes, p. 80. ' Koheleth, when he sum- mons to enjoyment, never incites to lying in wait for the righteous or oppress- ing the widow, but Wisdom might well think that this followed from his denial of immortality.' And so Wright argues that Koheleth never actually urges to a dissolute life but to the enjoyment of natural pleasures. '' That other books of similar type were current among half-believing Jews is testified to by (Eth.) Enoch, civ. 10: 'I know this secret, that many sinners will change and distort the words of truth, hold evil discourses and lie, devise great deceptions and write books on their discourses." Beer ad loc. remarks that ' Sadducean' books are meant, for the existence of which he cites the Talmud (Sanhedriri, 100). 26 INTRODUCTION It is hardly necessary to quote passages from the Alexandrine Pseudo-Solomon to illustrate his diametrically opposite view. ' He, an Israelite, proud of the history of his fathers, could not understand a man writing almost as if he had ceased to be an Israelite, one to whom the names of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were unknown, and therefore he enters on a survey of that history to show that it had all along been a process manifesting the law at once of a Divine exhibi- tion and of a Divine education' (Plumptre, Eccl., p. 73). Every passage which expresses the narrow particularism of 'Wisdom' may be regarded in this sense, as when in 10 ^^ ' Wisdom delivered an holy people and a blameless seed from a nation of oppressors ' ; when in 11 '"1^ we have God's different dealings at once with his chosen and their enemies the Egyptians ; and when in 12 82 we are told that ' while thou dost chasten us thou scourgest our enemies ten thousand times more.' So, too, 15^, 'Even if we sin we are thine, knowing thy dominion,' a sentiment illustrated by the whole of chapter 18. But perhaps the most striking insistence on the power of the God of Israel is to be found in 6 *-^, where the 'judges of the ends of the earth' — possibly the Emperor himself — are reminded that their dominion was given from the Lord and their sovereignty from the Most High, ' who shall search out your works and shall make inquisition of your coun- sels, because being officers of his Icingdom ye did not judge aright.' But when Dr Plumptre goes on to say of the writer of Wisdom that 'he could as little understand how a son of Abraham, writing in Egypt with all the monuments of its old idolatries and later develop- ments of the same tendency to anthropomorphic and theriomorphic worship around him, could have let slip the opportunity of declaring that God is a spirit,' he goes too far, and assumes as facts the mere suppositions of his ' ideal life ' of Koheleth, who is generally under- stood to have been a Palestinian Jew,'' of whatever age. Further suggestions of this author, however, deserve notice. That the absolute want of any devotional sentiment in Koheleth should have stirred the writer of Wisdom to 'put into the mouth of his ideal Solomon a prayer of singular power and beauty ' is likely enough ; and still more convincing seems the idea that, finding in Ecclesiastes no idea of God but 'that of power, hardly of law, predestinating times and seasons (Eccles. 3 iw) and the chances and changes of » Cheyne, Joh and Solomon, pp. 258-2£9. Plumptre, again, goes too far -wben he speaks of the author of Wisdom as a ' mystical ascetic who had been ti aiced in the school of Philo ' — an absolutely unfounded description. OBJECT OF THE BOOK 27 men's lives (9"), working out a partial retribution for man's misdeeds within the limits of earthly eocperience ^ (11 ', 12 '■•), but leaving many wrongs and anomalies unredressed ' (5*, 8'i) the new Solomon insisted ou the idea of the Fatherhood of God, which had been the mainstay of Israel in their darkest hour (Isa. 63 1', 64*) as he does in 11 1°, ' These thou didst admonish and try as a father,' and in 14 ', ' Thy providence, O Father, guideth it (the ship) along.' With regard to the eschatology of Koheleth, perhaps it would hardly be an exaggeration to say that he has no eschatology at all. It is impossible to gather from his writings that he believes in any other world than this ; the single passage in which Sheol is men- tioned is one of those ascribed by Siegfried to his ' Epicurean Sadducee.' Probably the writer's true sentiments are to be found in 3 ^, ' all are of the dust and all turn to dust again ' ; 9 ^•'^, ' the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. As well their love as their hatred and envy is now perished ; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any- thing that is done under the sun.' The only reason why death is worse than life is given in the same passage, ' the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything.' But the most remarkable text of all is 7 '^, if it is rightly interpreted by Dr. Cheyne : *> ' On a good day be of good cheer, and on an evil day consider (this) : God hath made this (good) equally with that (evil), on the ground that man is to experience nothing at all hereafter.' The translator remarks on this : ' as a last consolation for cool and rational thinkers, be sure that there is nought to fear after death ; there are no torments of Gehenna. This is in fact the reason why God ordains evil : there being no second life, one must learn whatever he can from calamity in this life.' But it was this very assumption that God ordained evil in the world that inspired the writer of "Wisdom in his strong asseveration that God never did so ; (2 ^*) ' by the envy of the devil death entered into the world,' etc. * This limitation is introduced by those who still refuse to regard 11 ^ as aa interpolation ; but Dr. Cheyne, acknowledging the interpolation, frankly admits (what must be plain to the candid reader) that judgment ofUr death is most likely referred to (Ibid., p. 224). If it refers even to retiibuticn here on earth, it is at variance with the rest of the writer's ideas (of. Charles, Esclatilcty, p. 67). " Ibid., p. 216. 28 INTRODUCTION We can liardly le -nicrg in following Dr. Cheyne so far as to doubt whether the writer of Koheleth had any belief at all in the immortality of the soul or even the resurrection of the dead. The author of Wisdom apparently had no doubts ; his setting forth of his belief in the resurrection (chap. 3) follows so closely upon his denunciation of the Epicureanism of Ecclesiastes that we must almost perforce regard the whole as an attack on the same book. The ques- tion of the precise meaning and force of the famous passage, ' the souls of the righteous ' (3 i-'), must be deferred for further considera- tion in an additional note, but in any case it is a strong asseveration of that belief in some form of life after death which the writer of Koheleth never shows. As a side issue, we may here mention the question of retribution even here on earth. Dr. Charles (Eschatology, p. 67) says plainly, 'he declares in fact that there is no retribution at all. Thus he maintains that evil may prolong a man's days and righteous- ness curtail them (7 ^% that the destiny of the wise man and the fool is identical (2 '*), and likewise that of the righteous and the wicked (9^): "All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked ; to the good and to the evil ; to the clean and to the unclean ; to him that sacrificeth and to him that sacriflceth not. The good man fares like the sinner, and he that sweareth as he that feareth an oath " ; finally, that the 'wicked attain to the honour of burial, whilst this is often denied to the righteous (8 ^o).' To this the book of Wisdom has a single incisive answer, but one which indicates well the heresy against which it is directed (2 ^2). 'They knew not the mysteries of God, neither hoped they for wages of holi- ness, nor did they judge that there is a prize for blameless souls.' But the criticism becomes even more direct in Wisd. 1 '^, where ' seek not death in the error of your life' is a plain rebuke to Eccles. 6 5, where Koheleth says of the ' untimely birth ' that ' it hath not seen the sun nor known it ; this hath rest rather than the other,' viz. the most prosperous man that lives. It was only the ungodly who counted Death their friend (Wisd. 1 "5), for God made not death (Wisd. 1 13) and never intended it. And whatever view we take of the precise meaning of Wisd. 3i', it is certain that it contains a direct contra- diction of the doctrine of Koheleth. ' There is no remembrance of former things,' said the latter (1 "), ' neither shall there be any remem- brance of things that are to come with those that shall come after,' and 'Wisdom' almost repeats the words as the utterance qf the wicked (2 ■•), ' Our name shall be forgotten in time, and no man shall OBJECT OF THE BOOK 29 remember our works' : and then comes the magnificent answer to this, and to the similar complaint that ' the wise man dieth as the fool,' and that there Is one event to the righteous and the wicked Eccles. 7 •", 9 2) in the words (Wisd. 3 ^-i), ' In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die, and their departure is taken for misery . . . but they are In peace . . . their hope Is full of Immortality.' Such detailed contradiction seems almost like the work of a contemporary, or nearly contemporary, critic. '^ There is Indeed hardly a statement as to the behaviour and language of the wicked in Wisdom which is not based upon some text or hint in the book of Koheleth, except. Indeed, the references to persecution of the just man, which, as we have seen, are to be referred to local and contemporary events. We come thirdly to the arraignment of Koheleth ' as a Hedonist ; a mere Epicurean.' It may be mentioned in passing that also the modern Hebrew connects ' Epicurus ' with the notion of apostasy ; and the Rabbis even asserted (Cheyne, 262 n. 2) that ' the Serpent was Epicurus ' ; and however the doctrines of the Ionian philosopher may be explained away and softened down nowadays. It is certain that his followers, incapable of entering into the subtle doctrines of live and let live which the sage taught, interpreted them as encouraging • Hedonism pure and simple, lustful and sensual. Against the charge of Inculcating such Ideas most of the commentators on Ecclesiastes are eager to defend him. Cheyne (p. 253) regards him merely as an advocate of ' festive but refined society,' and with some justice attacks (p. 263) the efforts of Plumptre and Tyler to connect his teaching with the formal system of Epicurus as expounded by Lucretius. He thinks (p. 211) that the writer ' is no vulgar sensualist ; his merriment is spoiled by the thought of the misery of others.' It may have been ; but he did not recommend other people to allow it to spoil theirs. The extreme statement of the defenders of Koheleth may perhaps be found in Cornill, as quoted by the writer of the article on ' Ecclesiastes ' in Hastings!). B. 1., 'Old Testament piety has never achieved a greater triumph than in the book of Koheleth.' " Dr. Wright gives the following list of parallel or antagonistic passages. Wisd, 21. Eccl. 223, 516.17 | wisd. 22-3'5. Bool. 8S, and 32-18.21 | -wisd. 22 .(the word aiVoirxeStos) and Eccl. 319, 9" | Wisd. 2* and Eccl. 1", 2 16, 9^1 Wisd. 2 5 (v.!>) and Eccl. 6 12, 8 is | Wisd. 2 «-i» and Eccl. 9 '"9 | Wisd. 3 2-3, and Eccl. 92 I Wisd. 816, and Eccl. lis | Wisd. 8i« and Eccl. 9" | Wisd. 8 is and " Eccl. 2 16. Dr. Wright maintains the theory of a deliberate polemic of Wisdom against Koheleth; He assumes (p. 67) that the Freethinkers of Alexandria actually appealed to that book as the genuine work of Solomon . 30 INTRODUCTION We are accustomed to such exaggerations. The main point for us is the way in which the book struck the author " of "Wisdom, and we cannot blame him if he overlooked the Old Testament piety and went straight to such words as Eccl. 9 '' : ' Bat thy bread with joy and drink thy wine with a merry heart ; for God hath already accepted thy works. Let thy garments be always white, and let not thy head lack ointment. Live joyfully with thy wife whom thou lovest all the days of thy vanity . . . for that is thy portion in life.' Is he misrepre- senting Koheleth when he puts into the mouth of the wicked such words as (2 ') ' Let us enjoy the good things that now are ... let us fill ourselves with costly wine and perfumes, and let no flower of spring pass us by ' ? In some verses he seems to take the very words of the 'Preacher' to refute : it is he and his crew who say ' the misery of man is great upon him,' and Wisdom repeats the sentiment with reprobation in(2^) 'Short and sorrowful is our life.' 'We shall be hereafter as though we had never been ' (Wisd. 2 ^) is an echo of Bccles. 9 '', ' the dead know not anything . . . for the memory of them is forgotten.' Death and life are both determined by a random chance : ' by mere chance we were born ' (Wisd. 2 2), ' time and chance happeneth to them all ' (Eccles. 9 2). ' The body shall be turned into ashes and the spirit shall be dispersed as thin air ' (Wisd. 2 ^) repre- sents a certain interpretation of Bccles. 12 ', which may well have been current in the days of the writer of ' Wisdom.' To the recurring complaint that ' all things are vanity and the pursuit of wind,' he answers with the stern rebuke that ' murmuring is unprofitable ' (Wisd. 1 '') and indeed worse ; for ' no man that uttereth unrighteous things shall be unseen ; neither shall convicting Justice pass him by ' (Wisd. 1 '). Where Koheleth speaks of seeking wisdom in wine and revelry and the delights of the sons of men (Eccles. 2 i-^), the Alex- andrian answers that ' Wisdom will not dwell in a body that is subject unto sin ' (Wisd. 1 ^). Besides these general arraignments of the three most offensive points in Koheleth — its unJudaic character, its despairing theory, or want of theory, of an after life, and its Hedonism— a number of minor antagonisms appear between the two writers. The different view taken of the function of kings and rulers and of their iniquities (Eccles. 5^, " Plumptre, Introd., p. 74, 'I look on the estimate which the author of the Wisdom of Solomon formed of Ecclesiastes as a wrong one, that lie was wanting in the insight that sees the real drift which is the resultant of cross currents and conflicting lines of thought.' OBJECT OF THE BOOK 31 10*-2», compared with Wisd. has ei'") already been noticed. But Wisdom's view of domestic life is also different from that of Koheleth : the latter's opinion of women is, like that of all sensualists, a low one : Eccles. 72^, 'one (good) man among a thousand I have found ; but a woman among all those have I not found ' ; ' he is met,' says Plumptre, ' with the half personal answer that that was but natural, that it was true of all who despised wisdom and nurture that their wives were lightminded and their children wicked ' (Wisd. 3 '^). Again Koheleth certainly takes a sensual view of wedlock. His exhortations to ' live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest' (9^), though expressed in unimpeachable language, can have butone meaning. It is just possible that 11 '-2, ' cast thy bread upon the waters,' etc., and 12 1, 'Kemember thy fountain ' (?) have the same significance ; but it is unnecessary to press the point. The doctrine of ' Wisdom ' implies no asceticism : it simply affirms that ' blessed is the barren who is undeflled ' (3 ^'), which very possibly refers not even to breaches of chastity, but to unlawful marriages with Gentiles or apostate Jews. Taking it in this latter sense, there is no reason to argue that Koheleth (Plumptre, p. 73) ' welcomed on almost equal terms children born in and out of wed- lock ' : he may have done so : the author of Wisdom does not accuse him of it, but certainly the latter shows no trace of the doctrine of the ' more rigid Essenes.' Lastly, it is assumed by Dr. Charles, whom we quote as one of the latest writers on the question, that the purpose of the Pseudo- Solomon is to prove that 'for the soul in such straits' (le. weighed down by the corruptible body) ' there is one sovereign remedy, and that is Divine wisdom.' Wisdom is the ' redeemer of the soul and its pre- server, and the only spring of its immortality' (Eschatology, p. 256). The last statement arises from a confusion between actual immor- tality and the purely figurative ' deathlessness ' (of reputation?) alluded to in 8" and 6i8'°. But unless these two passages be further forced so as to prove wisdom to be the ' redeemer of the soul and its preserver,' one may well ask where, in the whole book, such statements are to be found. Dr. Charles is induced to read this strong assertion of the present succouring power of wisdom into the book, because he acknowledges only the vaguest form of immortality as compensating the righteous hereafter for their sufferings here on earth. (See additional note on the Interpretation of Wisd. 3 ■''.) But there certainly are traceable 32 INTRODUCTION in the first few chapters signs o£ a view of Wisdom not unlike that which modern Christian preachers sometimes put forward under the name of Nature: something vague and yet active, intervening between God and man, on which the blame of man's misfortunes and errors may be conveniently cast at times ; not a real entity or person, but of sufficient substance to be described as ' God's handmaid,' or, on the other hand, as in Tennyson's famous ' Nature red in tooth and claw.' No one supposes that Professor Drummond or the late poet laureate believed in a personified Nature, and probably the author of Wisdom, even when, as in chaps. 7, 8, 9, he comes nearest to ' hypostatising ' Wisdom, goes no further in actual belief than they did. But even the vague conception of a-oia as God's helper and companion appears only in the first nine chapters, and principally, of course, in the three attributed to Solomon. In the last ten the idea is silently dropped, or rather another conception of Wisdom substituted. We are told in chap. 6^* that we are now to have a sketch of Wisdom's career, and we anticipate a kind of Philosophy of History, but we never get it. The next three chapters are filled with Solomonic praises of her, and the remaining ten are occupied with that form of human wisdom which consists in the resolute rejection of idolatry. It should be noted that Dr. Farrar (Introd., il8b) takes a view similar to that of Dr. Charles, but in a modified form : he recognises that what is secured by wisdom is merely ' immortal memory ' " (8 loic^^ but he repeats the other eulogies of her from chaps. 7-9, and adds one point. ' Childlessness and a short life might be regarded as mis- fortunes ; but when they befell the possessor of wisdom they were blessings far more consummate than the many children of long-lived sinners' (4''). Unfortunately for the argument, it is not the 'pos- sessor of wisdom ' but of ' virtue ' * (/iera dpeTrjs 4 ') who is alluded to. » With this figurative view of 'immortality' compare that of Ecolus. (37 ^6). ' His name (that of the wise man) shall live for ever ' (41 12.13)^ ' a good name contiaueth for ever': cf. Burney, Israel's Hope of Immortality, pp. 65-68. The son of Siraoh certainly did not believe in ' immortality ' in our sense of the word, or indeed in any real world beyond the grave. Bois, Essai Critique, p. ,386 (who speaks contemptuously of this pseudo-immortality as an 'immortality mnemoniqne'), wonders that after writing chap. iii. the author should limit himself to the mention of any such figurative eternity, and thinks it still more remarkable that he should use dBava,vro^ <70(f)ta. » £p. 130 ; De Doctr. Christ, ii. 8, of also Retractt., ii. 4. ■ f Vol. i. col. 937-8, ed. Bened., Paris, 1693 ; Wright, Koheleth, p. 57. ' It is worthyof note that some oftheFathers, such as Origen, Eusebius, and Augustine ■who doubted or denied the Solomonic origin of the book, maintained its divine inspiration,' But in the quotation from li'^in Eusebius, Prafp. /Jr. i. 9 (p 33 ed Heinichen), it is simply called deiov \hyiov and not Baos X670S as in Origen. TITLE 35 (Tertull., de Baptismo, 17). It is suggested that in the repetition of the word 'Salomonis' a reference to his 'Psalms' may be con- cealed. But of pseudonymic " literature there are several widely distinct varieties. In some cases books have been written merely ' in honorem ejus,' like the writings of Cicero just quoted, where no one is expected or supposed to accept the name at the head of the treatise as genuine. Somewhat different from this case is that of Plato's Apologia of Socrates and the rival tractate of Xenophon. Here we certainly have an effort to represent what the eponymous hero of the work said or should have said: the line between 'in honorem ejus' and forgery becomes, as in the case of the speeches in Thucydides, less distinct. Possibly it is to this class that the book of "Wisdom belongs, and its position in such case cannot be better described than in the words of Dean Plumptre (Introd. to Eccles. , pp. 70, 71) who regards ' Wisdom ' as primarily intended to confute ' Koheleth.' ' Let us remember,' he says, ' in what light it [Koheleth] must have presented itself to him. It had not, if our conclusion as to its authorship be right, 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 a 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 Epicureanism and Sadducceism. If it was interpreted then as it has often been interpreted since, it may have seemed to him to sanction a lawless sensnality, 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.' This account of things can hardly be bettered. The writer of Wisdom accepts Koheleth as a manifesto (possibly published not very long before) of the Epicurean « Early commentators were not withont their doubts as to the morality of the ascription to Solomon. John of Salisbury, Ep. cxliii., Migne, 199, col. 129, indicates this: 'Librum sipientiae composuit Philo diciturque Pseudipigraphus, non quia male scripserit, sed quia male Inscripsit. Inscriptus enim est Sapientia Salomonis cum a Salomone non sit editus.' 36 INTRODUCTION school of thought, and he says, ' I pit the real Solomon against your false Solomon ; I am persuaded that your ideas are not such as the wise monarch would have approved. I give to the world my book under the name of Solomon the Genuine as against Solomon the garbled and fictitious.'" This would be a perfectly satisfactory settlement of the question of pseudonymity if it were not for the three Solomonic chapters 7-9. It has been already remarked that that acute critic Bickell stigmatised the distinctly Solomonic passages in Koheleth as introduced for the purpose of obtaining for the book admission into the Canon. Can we be quite sure that a similar object did not dictate the composition of these chapters, though in all probability they are by the author of the rest? (cf. the section on the Unity of the Book). This view is taken by authorities of weight. Kuenen'' {Rel. of Israel, Eng. trans., iii. 176) remarks that almost all the Jewish apologetics are pseudepigraphic, i.e. written in the names of older authors, and so arranged as to induce the unsuspecting reader to believe in the authorship. The augmentors of Esther and Daniel did this, inasmuch as their additions joined on to the original and appeared to be part of it. "We may go somewhat further, and point out that in the case of ' Daniel ' it was the successful capture of the name of the Old Testament saint referred to in Ezek. 14 '^^o and 28 ^ that probably secured the admission of a questionable book into the Canon, while the honesty of the son of Sirach forfeited for him all hope of such a privilege. Such appropriation of literary reputations was so continual that it seems to have become recognised as a trick of the trade. Speaking of the Alexandrine age. Dr. Plumptre (Introd. to Eccles., p. 53) says, ' The students of philosophy habitually conveyed their views in the " Dr. 'W-nigM, {Koheleth, p. 60) quotes a book on ' ihe Authorship of JScclesiastes,' by the Rev. David Johnston, in which it is stated that the allegation that the book of Wisdom personates Solomon is scarcely borne out by the contents of the book — apparently on the ground that Solomon is not mentioned by name. But surely the allusion to the building of the temple in 9 8 is sufficient to establish this point. Cf. notes on 7 ^. " So too Dahne, Oeschichtl. Darst. der jud.-alez. Philosophie, ii. 223, who remarks that 'all these interpolations are cunningly done.' [He is speaking of Eupolemus, Psexido-Phocylides, etc.] 'They are effected in the case of writers who lived in the clays of Jewish splendour and therefore would be likely to speak of the nation with respect.' They did not always escape exposure cf, Diihne'a notes ad loc. AUTHORSHIP OF WISDOM 37 shape of treatises by Aristotle or lectures or dialogues by Plato. There was scarcely a medical writer of eminence at Alexandria who had not published his views as to the treatment of disease under the name of Hippocrates.' This is all very well, but the design of these persons was to all intents and purposes fraudulent, and it is not well to class them with the authors of the two ' Apologies ' of Socrates, as Dr. Plumptre does. They have done an infinity of mischief by pre- venting us from discerning which are the genuine and which the supposititious works of the great masters. But of their absolute want of conscience on this point Bertholet, in Budde's Althehrdische Litteraiur, p. 339, quotes some striking instances. An Arabic author, Gahiz, is said by Al Masudi to have complained that the only way to secure popularity for his books was to ascribe them to some great foreign authority ; the story of the Acts of Paul and Thekla has been quoted above ; and in the second preface to 2 Mace. (2 ") we have an example of the way in which scattered notices were to be collected and combined into one pseudepigraphic work. ' The question is then, Is the author of ' Wisdom ' to be reckoned among the forgers? The answer depends on the view which we take of the three middle chapters, 7-9. If those are part of the original scheme of the book, then the author's intention is innocent. If they are later additions, they are additions deliberately made to secure, if not canonicity, at least popularity for the work. § 5. Authorship of Wisdom. The conjectures as to the authorship of such a book may well seem to be the vainest of pursuits. The assumption of a false name, for whatever purpose, obviously precludes the writer from giving us the slightest hint as to his own real personality, and so far he has perfectly succeeded in concealing his identity. Such theories as are here stated are merely for the benefit and information of the student, who may, if he cares to do so, find the result, or want of result, attained to, in the authorities quoted. The best summary is undoubtedly that of Farrar {Introd., pp. 411 sqq.). 1. The hypothesis of Solomonic authorship, questioned, as we have seen, so far back as the date of the Syriac Peshitto, may be at once dismissed. Neither on internal nor on external evidence (for the Fathers who quote the book as by Solomon are obviously speaking as loosely as we do when we speak of ' Remember thy creator ' as the 38 INTRODUGTION words of the great king) can we presume such authorship. It is slaying the slain when Reuss {Introd., p. 505) points out the discrep- ancies; in particular, that the reference to all the nations that had oppressed the Jews, with their many and modern forms of idolatrous worship, points to a time far later than the victorious days of Solomon. '^ 2. The passing suggestion of St. Augustine (De Doctr. Christ, ii. 8) that the book was written by the son of Sirach was withdrawn by the author of it {Retractations, ii. 4), and is every way untenable. The two writers not only differ in style and in purpose,*" but also, as we shall presently see, are diametrically opposed on the question of the resurrection. 3. More serious is the suggestion that Aristobulus, or rather Pseudo-Aristobulus, wrote the book. Now, if ' Aristobulus ' had really been what he represents himself to be, the historic personage spoken of as ' instructor of King Ptolemy ' in 2 Mace. 1 '", no doubt Dr. Farrar's arguments would hold good. He says quite truly that Ptolemy's teacher could never have written Wisd. 6i-^ (the address to the 'judges of the ends of this earth '), and that the condition of the Jews under Ptolemy Philometor was not consistent with talk of persecu- tion. But the Aristobulus of Eusebius is no ' teacher of Ptolemy ' at all ; he is a Jewish apologist writing some forty years after the " Equally unnecessary is the argument that Solomon with his 700 wives and 300 concubines is not the proper person to chant the praises of purity and self- restraint, as in 3 3 sqq. It should be noted, however (Wright, Koheleth p. 64), that in later times at least the Jewish authorities refused to recognise the con- duct of Solomon as sinful. The Talmud explained away the crimes both of David and Solomon, and asserted that the former was never guilty of adultery. Quite recently Margoliouth (Expositor, 1900, i. 141, 186) has revived the idea of Solomonic authorship. He argues (1) that where there is correspondence be- tween Siracides and Wisdom (as in the passages about the children of the wicked), Ecclesiasticus copied Pseudo-Solomon ; (2) that Isaiah (28", 401'', and 35^), was thinking of Wisdom and not Wisdom of Isaiah ; (3) and finally declares openly for the Solomonic authorship of Wisdom, the references to Greek philosophy being introduced by the translator. •> Of. Nestle in Hastings's D. B. , iv. 5.o0. Speaking of Ben-Sira as an expounder of ' Wisdom,' with a magniloquent description of which he opens his book, he says quite truly, ' he does not dwell long in these lofty regions, but turns him- self to the wisdom of daily life ' ; but even of daily life Pseudo-Solomon has a higher conception than Siracides. Of. Scliiirer, ii. 3, 230, and for a brilliant and humorous estimate of the value of Ben-Sira for didactic purposes, Silmon, 'Introd. to Apocrypha' in Speaker's Commentary, i. p. xxxix. AUTHORSHIP OF WISDOM 3^ Christian era (cf . Gratz, Gesch. der Juden, iii. 632), and the main argu- ment against his authorship of the book of Wisdom, apart from the want of all evidence to that effect, is that while he seeks to conciliate the Pagans by wholesale forgeries, the author of Wisdom confines himself to denunciation of their idolatrous follies. i. The view that Philo " was the author of the book had been held by writers before Jerome ' nonnuUi scriptorum veterum ' {Praef. in Libros Salmonis, vol. i. col. 937-8 ed. Bened.). It is not stated that he held it himself, but Nicolaus of Ijyra is said to have done so, as also Luther and our own Bishop Cosin. It might suffice to quote the incisive words of Eeuss (Introd., p. 505), ' this merely proves that the study of Philo's philosophy was yet in a very rudimentary stage ' ; but an examination of the claims of ' Wisdom ' to Philonian author- ship may absolve us from the wearisome task of investigating the possible connection of the two writers. That they were contempor- aries (or nearly so), knowing nothing of one another, or at least ignor- ing one another,'' is the theory which commends itself on the ground of common sense. It reconciles the opposing views of Farrar, who (p. 421&) thinks that if Pseudo-Solomon had preceded Philo he must have influenced him, and that of other writers who argue that the system (?) « To the objections to Philo's authorship one or two are added by Bissell (Apocr., p. 226). (1) If iirccrKowrj (3 '-18) be taken in the sense of the day of Judgment, we have here another idea quite foreign to the Philonian philosophy. (2) Considering the absolute personification of a-oia creates all things— 9 is, IP, 8 6, 9 9; so does Logos 9 2 (but see above). (2) Logos by inflicting the plagues delivered Israel from Egypt, 18 15. It was also Wisdom that delivered them, IQi^'is. (3) Both are called iravrodivafios, 18 1-*^, 7^. (4) They dwell in the same place, 18 1^, 9 ■•, by ' the throne.' (5) Logos touches heaven and walks on earth, 18 1^, and Wisdom 'reacheth from one end to another,' 8^. The reader can judge how far identity of idea is proved by these texts. Bois' identification of the wyevfia dyiov with troipla (p. 234) may be accepted ; it proves nothing with regard to the connection of ' Wisdom ' and Philo. Gfrorer, Philo, ii. 216, 217, had already acknowledged it. Bousset, Rel. des Judenthums, p. 342, argues that Wisdom, the ' holy spirit of discipline ' and the spirit of God are in the writer's idea one and the same. But the ' holy spirit of discipline ' is generally taken as ' a holy spirit of discipline ' (1^, cf, notes od loc). Acting on his idea that X670S and ffo^ia are the same, Bois (p. 249) remarks that whereas the Stoics believed that all created things possessed the Logos, but men in a different degree to animals, Pseudo-Solomon makes his distinction between the bad and the good man. The good possess wisdom exactly as God does. Sv,a^ioi(ns is used of both relations (8 3 .and 8 9). But the wicked must possess it in a certain sense also ; for Wisdom penetrates all (7 ^, 8 1). AUTHORSHIP OF WISDOM 43 9'*' that -a corruptible body weigheth down the soul,' acknow- ledges in 82" that there may be 'a body undefiled,' Philo, on the other hand, pushes the Platonic idea of the natural evil character of the body to its extreme. It is even called an ' utterly polluted prison ' (Tra/ifiiapov Sea-fiaiTfipiou, De Migr. Abr. 2). Of course with such views Philo could hardly hold that a resurrection of the body was possible. Indeed, there appears to be no mention of a resurrection in his writings at all ; and herein he differs toto ccelo from the author of Wisdom, chap. 3. (d) Among other minor points of disagreement one stands out sharply. Pseudo-Solomon in a somewhat famous passage 3 '^ (' Happy is the eunuch which hath wrought no lawless deed with his hands,' etc.), commends a class of persons whose position was utterly abhorrent to Jewish feeling (cf. notes ad loc). Philo (de Vict. Offer., §§ 13, 16) speaks with approval and in somewhat revolting terms of their ex- clusion from the assemblies of God's people. Lastly, there is a distinct difference in the two writers' treatment of idolatry " and its causes. Philo (de Monarchia, i. 1, 3,'') deduces certain forms of idolatry, and quite correctly, from the adoration of sun, moon, and stars. Pseudo-Solomon, with another kind of superstition in his mind, and possibly forced upon his notice by the proceedings of Caligula, ascribes such worship to the depiction of dead relatives (1215^35.). But he also recognises in 13 2 the other form. Little can be proved from such a point. 5. J. M. Faber's suggestion that Zerubbabel may have been the author of the book, fantastic as it seems, was founded (according to Blunt, Annotated Bible) on the apocryphal speech of that vague hero on Truth in 1 Esdr. 413-40. 6. But we come now to what is surely one of the strangest theories ever advocated by a sober-minded English scholar. Dr. Plumptre in the Expositor, Ser. i. vol. i. 329, 409, revived and defended an idea of Noack, a somewhat imaginative German writer of the last century, to the effect that ' Wisdom ' was written by Apollos. He had not seen ' Cf. Bousset, Rel. des Jwdenihums, p. m, who remarks that Wisdom distin- guishes three kinds of idolaters in order of merit— (1) tlie worshippers of the heavenly bodies, (2) the worshippers of images of men, (3) worshippers of beasts and reptiles. This, he thinks, is ' a finer appreciation of ethnic religion than Paul arrived at.' " Cf. also De Vita Contemp., % 1 ; De Decalog., §§ 12-16; De Parent. Col., § 9. 44 INTRODUCTION Noack's book."- His eflforts at identification depend on a mixture of ingenious conjecture and of what a French writer calls parallelomanie —a mania which has possessed many commentators on the Apocrypha. He finds so many correspondences between Hebrews, Wisdom, and Clement of Kome that we are almost left in doubt as to whether all three authors are not the same. But he fails to meet the fatal objec- tion that there is absolutely no resemblance between the general style of the books of Hebrews and Wisdom. That his theory has no external evidence to support it goes without saying. Farrar's statement, however (414a), that Hebrews ' shows no trace of the familiarity with Greek learning and philosophy which is so re- markable a feature of the book of Wisdom ' is of no great value. As we shall presently see, it may be questioned if the Pseudo-Solomon knew much philosophy at all, or even much Greek. Giving up, therefore, as an insoluble problem, the question of the writer's personality, can we form any idea of the class or school to which he belonged ? We may probably assume that he was an Egyptian Jew. Professor Margoliouth, it is true (I.e., p. 295), argues against this idea. 'He knows,' he says, 'nothing of Egypt beyond what he might have got from the Bible,' and he proceeds to reason to the same effect from the omission of all mention of the peculiarities of the land of the Pharaohs; in particular, 'Wisdom,' he says, 'does not refer to the scarcity of water, but speaks of the ' ever-flowing river,' which is an incorrect description. He was answered by Freu- denthal in the Jewish Quarterly Review, 1891, and in the main eifectually, though it is questionable if ^eVoi v^to'l in 16 '^ can have the meaning of scarce or infrequent rains. Still less cogent is Mar- goliouth's argument that because the writer of Wisdom refers with affection to Jerusalem and never once to the rival temple of Onias at Leontopolis (Jos., Ant. , vm. iii. 3), he therefore did not dwell in Egypt. » Nor had Farrar, who (4136, n. 2) says that Noack ( Ursprung des Ghrisienthums, i. 222) 'supposes that Apollos wrote it with the help of the Apostle Paul.' Noack, on the contrary (ii. 244 sqq.), emphasises and exaggerates the dififereuce between the two teachers, even discovering in St. Paul's quotation from Isaiah in 1 Cor. 1 ^^ dTroXw ttjv ao(piav tCiv aotpdv at once a pun on Apollos' name and a denunciation of his teaching of the Hellenic (ro0/a or Logos. All the passages in which St. Paul argues against the 'wisdom of men' he takes to be directed against Apollos as the author of this hook of Wisdom. '' As an example we may quote Hilgenfeld's attempt to discover correspon- dences between 'Wisdom ' and the 'Psalms of Solomon' (Kdnig, EitiZ. in das A. T., 505 n.). AUTHORSHIP OF WISDOM 45 For though priests and Levites served in that sanctuary, it never could eflface the old love for the temple at Jerusalem even among the Alex- andrine Jews. ' In their eyes Jerusalem was still their holy city ; they sent their temple tribute thither (Jos., Ant., xiv. vii. 2), and went a pilgrimage thither' (Kuenen, Eel. of Isr., Bng. trans., iii. 183).=' The point of the Egyptian origin of the book is of some importance as affecting a theory which was held by Gfrorer (Philo, ii. 265) and others, to the effect that the author was an Essene,* or a member of the branch of that society which existed in Egypt under the name of Therapeutae. Unfortunately, as soon as mention is made of this sect we have to encounter furious prejudice. A certain school of critics are determined to exaggerate the numbers and importance of the Essenes in order to give colour to the hypothesis that Christianity itself was but a development of this Jewish form of belief which took the form of the extremest asceticism. Why Josephus thought " &t to exalt the little sect is not very apparent {Ant., xviii. i. 5), but he esti- mates their numbers at four thousand only, and as they did not allow marriage, and depended on proselytising to maintain their numbers, it is not probable that they ever increased much. Gfrorer (I.e.) main- tains with warmth that Wisdom is a Therapeutic book, but he builds chiefly on the supposed commendation of sterility in 3'', fxanapia (TTeipa fj dfilavTos, where ' unpolluted ' may simply mean not contami- nated by marriage with idolaters. The assumed direction to pray towards the sun in 16 ^ is of no importance. Cf. notes ad loc. But were there Therapeutse in Egypt at all ? The account of their existence there is based solely upon a tract ' De Vita contemplativa,' attributed to Philo, which Gratz (Gesch., iii. 658, 680) and Kuenen (Bel. of Isr., Eng. trans., iii. 204) condemn as a forgery, the former roundly » Another argument which might be urged against the Egyptian origin of the book, viz., the apparent ignorance of the author as to Egyptian worship, as shown by his mention of vermin and reptiles as their deities, has not been much pressed. Even residents in Egypt (like Juvenal possibly) fall into the strangest errors with respect to the native customs. ■j This theory is held by Ed. Pfleiderer and defended by him at some length in Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesos, Berlin, 1886, p. 306, n. 1. " It is now held by many critics (1) that Josephus wrote the account of the Esseues with a fixed intention 'to show what Jewish heresy was like,' and altered his facts to suit his purpose (Lucius, de?' JSssenismus, 1881), and (2) Ohle (Jahrb. fur Prot. Theol., xiv.-xv.) doubts if Josephus ever wrote the passage at all, or thinks that if he did he was copying and exaggerating Philo. 46 INTRODUCTION declaring that it is a Christian work intended to exalt monasticism. It is defended by Conybeare in Philo about the Contemplative Life ^ (Oxford, 1893), but a book so questioned can hardly, when it stands alone, be referred to as a safe authority. Nor need the hypothesis that the book was written by a Christian detain us long.'' ' There is no trace in the book,' says Farrar rightly (414:0.), ' of any knowledge of Christ nor of His atonement nor of His resurrection,' and it is quite true that of nine texts adduced to support such a view (4146, n. 1), not a single one shows distinct marks of Christian origin. They are 3 5, i^M, 5", T^s, 9 sis sqq., 11 lO-^i, and it is not worth while to quote them at length. There remain, however, two passages of more importance — 2 ''i*, and 14 ''. In the first (' let us see if his word be true . . . 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 ') we have certainly a very strong resemblance to S. Matt. 27 ^^■''^ but that does not prove anything. As to the other text (4 ^), ' Blessed is the wood whereby righteousness cometh,' it certainly seems meaningless where it stands. It is capable of explanation, as we shall see, without referring it to the cross of » Coayheare seems to succeed in proving an early date for the hook, but lie fails to remove the impression (1) that an ideal rather than a real mode of life is described, (2) that the asceticism described is such as Philo had no sympathy with. In any case, it must be conceded (Edersheim, Hist, of Jewish People, App. viii.) that no one before Eusehius distinctly mentions the Therapeuta-, and he thinks they were Christians. Drummond (Philo, i. 25) points out that Philo had no sympathy with asceticism, and quotes Quod det. pot. ins., % 7, 'Bodily mortification is not temperance, nor ritual holiness.' Zeller in his third edition (iir. ii. 207) gave up the defence of the ' contemplative life ' as Philonian. i" It was, however, strongly maintained by distinguished scholars down to the middle of the last century. Kirschbaum (cited by Grimm, p. 25) held that all the Apocrypha except 1 Mace, 1 Bsdr., and Bcclus., as well as all Philo's writings, were of Christian origin. Noack's theory is mentioned above. The original argument of C. H. Weisse is quoted in full by Bruch ( Weisheilslehre der Eebraer, 324 n.). It is grounded on (1) the name 'Father' used of God, (2) the passage 9 ^, .which seems entirely irrelevant, (3) the similarity of the language with that of the prayer of Ben-Sira in Ecclus. 51, especially v. i". '1 called upon the Lord, the Father of my Lord,' which he thinks undoubtedly Christian. His conclusion is ' it is said that St. Paul had this book before his eyes ! see if the reverse be not the truth.' He also held that Wisdom contained a 'clear and noble statement of the doctrine of imnjortality and retribution.' AUTHORSHIP OF WISDOM 47 Christ ; but if any passage could encourage the theory that the book has been dealt with by a Christian interpolator, It would be this. Of other passages, 3 '^ is absolutely Judaic in sense, as we have seen ; 4 Ms to be explained similarly ; while in 2 ^i the identification of the serpent with the devil is as much Talmudic as Christian. Cf. notes ad loc. The most recent and also the most fantastic theory as to the authorship of the work is that propounded by Lincke (Samaria und seine Propheten, 1903), who claims at least the first part of the book as the work of a Samaritan and anti-Jewish patriot. The erring rulers addressed in the earlier chapters are the ' Hierocrats ' at Jerusalem. The school of Samaria was founded under Persian auspices, and in the allusions to the devil we have a trace of the Persian dualism. The persecutors of the righteous man are the orthodox Jews. All this requires proofs, and those which are adduced are as follows : (1) The author is no Jew, or he would have mentioned the law of Moses and have named the Jewish saints by name. (2) A Jew, whether in Egypt or Palestine, would, in describing the life of Abraham, have followed Jewish tradition and not the Samaritan historian Eupolemus." (Cf. note on 10 ^) (3) The sparing of the Canaanites (12 1») would ■ Whether Bupolemus was a Samaritan at all may very fairly be doubted. The only reason for thinking him to have been such seems to be that, ■while he is generally regarded as a Jew, Josephus, c. Ap. , i. 23, says that he, with Demetrius Phalereus and the elder Philo, was incapable of exact understanding of Jewish documents. But even if he was a Samaritan (1) the passage about Abraham (Euseb., F. E., ix. 17) is probably not by him at all (Scbiirer, H. J. P., 11. iii. § 32, pars. 2 and 6) ; (2) it does not describe Abraham as present at the building of Babel, but seems to imply that he lived ten (or thirteen) generations after. Dahne, ii. 222, founds his belief that Eupolemus was a Samaritan on the passaee in Eusebius, P. S.,1X. xvii. 3: 'kpyapi^lv & ia-riv fie$epfn]vev6/iepov 6pos v^la-Tov. Cf. Heiniohen ad loc. It seems probable that Lincke derived his theory from Dahne. As to the bitter hostility between Jews and Samaritans in the land of their common exile there can be no possible doubt. In the ' Martyrdom of Isaiah ' (second century a.d. ) it is a Samaritan who accuses the prophet (3 *), under the inspiration of ' Belial,' who seems to have been regarded as the spirit of evil peculiar to the hated newcomers. Cf. Orac. Sihyll. iii. 63, ' from the Sebastenes (i.e. Samaritans) will Belial hereafter come ' and do great mischief. He will be a kind of Antichrist (Gratz, iii. 628). The miserable dispute between the opposing factions in the days of Ptolemy Philometor, which ended in the martyrdom of two Samaritan representatives, is recounted by Jos. Ant., XIII. iii. 4. 48 INTRODUCTION have no interest for Alexandria ; but an appeal to such long-suffering of God might soften the heart of the cruel despots of Jerusalem. (4) Wisdom sets up against the orthodox 'righteousness according to the law,' a new righteousness founded on obedience to the decrees of ' Wisdom.' It is not pretended that the book was written in Samaria, but it is pointed out (p. 143) that both Alexander the Great and Ptolemy i. transported multitudes of Samaritans to Egypt ; these took with them their books — Phocylides, the Rechabite Psalms, the ' Oath of the Essenes': such literature was remodelled by Jews on Jewish lines, and possibly our book of Wisdom underwent similar manipulation. Such is Lincke's theory. § 6. The Conception of 'Wisdom' in the Book. In approaching this subject the student must be warned that he will find in Pseudo-Solomon no exact philosophical reasoner, but rather a loose rhetorical thinker," who uses the first word that comes to hand, and that will round off a period. It is probably unfair to say that he wavers in his ideas of immortality (Siegfried in Hast. D. B., iv. 930a) between ' that of a continued personal existence and that of a survival in the memory of posterity,' for the adavaaia of 8'^ is a figurative term, and there is no sign of his confusing it with the real immortality of the soul. But in other respects he reveals himself for what he is ; a deeply religious Jew who has learned a little about Greek philosophy, and is not unwilling to let the world know that he has learned that little. If we leave out of account the three middle chapters, 7-9 (probably superimposed), we have the real man in his simplicity. Outside those chapters we have two expressions, and two only, which can be taken as showing acquaintance with Greek theories. They are wpavoia in 14 ^ and 17 ^, and a^op^or vXtj in 11 "■. On the other hand, when Mr. Deane {Prolegoyn., p. la) says that ' herein is presented a view of the Hebrew religion definite and con- sistent,' he is surely going too far. Dr. Farrar's words (p. 4156) are more to the purpose : ' It cannot be called a Hebz-ew philosophy. The " An example of contusion of ideas is to be found in 19 * — i] d^la dvajKri, a plain contradiction in terms. d|/a implies freewill, ivayK-fi predestination. Cf. Drummond, Philo, i. 192 sqq. Dahne (ii. 154) is perhaps right when he says that there is in the whole book no clear philosophical word on the actual relation of God and Wisdom. THE CONCEPTION OF 'WISDOM' IN THE BOOK 49 Jews had no philosophy; ... a nation which was absorbed in the contemplation of a uniquely revealed religion had little or no need for a speculative philosophy.' He quotes Dr. A. B. Davidson as pointing out that the Hebrew Wisdom ' aims at the recognition, not the discovery, of God. It professes to verify, not to infer.' This explains the remark of Bois (Essai critique, p. 220) that 'he proves nothing; he produces results as if they had been arrived at else- where.' We come now to ' that familiarity with Greek learning and philo- sophy which is so remarkable a feature of the book of Wisdom.' It may safely be said that there is not a line in the book which reveals any further knowledge of Greek philosophy than might be acquired by any frequenter" of the schools and market-places of Alexandria. ' II touche k tout, 11 ne developpe rien,' says Keuss (p. 507), and he might have added that he probably did not know enough to develop anything. Yet the same writer speaks of him as ' sketching in a few pages a perfect encyclopaedia of philosophic science, including almost all that we should consider such in modern times, from psychology and metaphysics down to the principles which should regulate domestic and social life.' But where is the encyclopaedia? do the simple words ' circuits of years and positions of stars ' (7 '^) evince a knowledge of the whole science of astronomy ? Does the line (7 '") ' the natures of wild beasts,' contain an exposition of zoology and physiology? As to 'psychology and metaphysics,' we are left to discover theip in the four words (two in the Greek) ' the thoughts of man ' ; while the next line, ' the diversities of plants and the virtues of roots,' gives us a fair idea of the exalted nature of our author's philosophy. Such ' sciences ' as are indicated need not have been outside the ken of any ordinary Jewish student. Siegfried falls into the common snare.- In ^a,atzsch, ApoJcr., i. 476, he says of the author of ' Wisdom,' ' He is acquainted with philosophy, especially Stoic and Epicurean ; he knows their problems and their technical expressions. He shows knowledge of Greek culture in art and science, astronomy and natural history, and gives us historical » This is also more or less Grimm's estimate (BmZ,, p. 22): 'Pseudo-Solomon's knowledge of Greek philosophy appears not as gained by any deep study, hut as a casual acquaintance very loosely connected with the content of Old Testament religion.' Cf. Porter in Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of W. R. Harper, p. 209. D So INTRODUCTION reflections.' Of the last point only there can be no doubt. But as to art in particular, the less said the better. A more Philistine point of view than that revealed in 15 ^-^ can hardly be conceived. ' Neither were we led astray by any evil device of men's art, nor yet by painters fruitless labour, a form stained with varied colours, the sight whereof leadeth fools into lust ; their desire is for the breathless form of a dead image.' The Mohammedan goes no further than this. We may return to Beuss In his common-sense mood and his summing up of what we are to expect from ' Wisdom.' ' II ne faut pas chercher dans les livres philosophiques de ce temps-la une methode rationnelle et dialectique telle que nous I'exigeons de nos jours des compositions du meme genre.' Much, of course, maybe read into such a book where the outline is so vague." Recent writers have, however, raised so many interesting points with regard to Pseudo-Solomon's acquaintance with Greek philosophy, that the matter must receive fuller considera- tion below. After premising this much, we shall not be surprised to find that on his main and central subject (as it at first appears) of a-ocpta, our author is vague and self- contradictory. That his ' wisdom' in any way corresponds to the Xdyos- of Philo we may consider at once (cf . previous section) as not proven. But more than this : he forgets all about the Divine Wisdom, the demi-goddess g-ocpia, asJ ie-goes on.. and such ' wi u d o m ' as appS ars in the latter half of his book takes the form of that-verytanrran"'^y)oi';;crir whicFf ej ects i dolatry a s at once contrary to"all reasoirraii3"also as briflging physical and concrete plag ues and tormentsTupon its adherent"""' What, then, is this 'Wisdom'? In its earliest form ('Aoima'), as » One may quote as examples of such 'reading in ' the attempt of Plumptre {Eccles., p. 47) to find the doctrine of atoms in Koheleth, and Cheyne's quota- tion {Job and Solomon, 229 n.) of Dr. John Smith, ' who, in Ms Portrait of Old Age (1666), sought to show that Solomon was thoroughly acquainted with recent anatomical discoveries.^ Ewald {Oeschichte des Volkes Israel, iii. 2, 549 n. 1) touches the real point. ' The influence of the Alexandrian philosophy on our author,' he says, ' has been much exaggerated.' And remarking on the fact that the four ' Platonic virtues,' of which so much has been made, occur only ' casually ' in 8 ', he quotes 4 Mace. 1 18, 5 22, and 16 i». Any one who will read these passages will be convinced that the person who wrote them was indeed saturated with Platonic philosophy, and will be equally assured that the author of the book of Wisdom treated them in his obiter dicta as of no particular importance. The insistence on these four virtues in the Fourth Book of Maccabees (in the case Of Jews who refused to eat pork) is very marked. THE CONCEPTION OF 'WISDOM' IN THE BOOK 51 exemplified in the parables of the Old Testam ent, it seems to have been a " Kind ot common-sense philosophy of life , yet_ with a str ong religious ten dency , which had its professors, somewhat like the S0l)histS 01 ixreece, who were looked upon askance by the prophets. But after the exile, when the springs of prophecy were dried up, it assumed a new shape. The writer of Proverbs 8 invented a semi- divinity, "• an offspring of God, the account of whose origin reminds us of the Greek myth of the birth of Pallas Athene from the brain of Zeus, and this idea is strengthened if we accept Siegfried's exposition (Hast., D. B., iv. 925a) that God 'after the toils of creation found a diversion as it were in this his firstborn before the world, as the child played before his eyes ' *" (Prov. 8 '"). But Wisdom did not co- operate in the creating of the heavens and the earth. Nor does she in the Pseudo-Solomon (8 *, ' she chooseth out for Him His works ' cannot be interpreted to mean this). She has, according to Prov. 8 3'^, to do with men alone ; in these she finds her delight, to them alone she turns with her caU to hear instruction. Of cour se all this may simply mea. fi a '•Viotpri"ai1 fTi?"vm+-''f"ttr\t wisdom which is one of G od 's , ^ttrihu tes. but it often came perilously nEJU' to ' the dualism wliich was so abhorrent to the Jewish mind. This exaggeration reaches its extreme point in the book of Baruch, where, after a long an d ambip;uous laudation of Wisdom (3 ^^-^^X we fi nd the amaz lpcy ata.t,rTnr"* ("^H i ' "*' ^ ^'^ I I 1 i Hii ii i li p iiili » With tliis may be compared the curious personification of 'Wicieduess' as a woman in Zech. 5 ^-n. But Drummoud (Philo, i. 142), doubts if even in Proverbs anything more than a ' purely poetical ' personification is meant. There is, he says, no personification in Job. i" Cheyne, however (Jewish Religious Life, p. 149), maintains that 'pre- existent Wisdom was the artificer of the world, one in purpose and in act with the creative Deity. ' In order to support this, however, he has to correct Prov. 8 3', which he renders 'sporting in the elaboration of his earth.' Bruch, Weisheitslehre, p. 346, had long ago emphasised the point that though wisdom is never spoken ot by Pseudo-Solomon as instrumental in creating the eartli (whereas the ' spirit of God ' is), he yet afterwards seems, from several passages, to treat the two as identical. He thinks that the author had given so much power to Wisdom that he had left no room for the Holy Spirit, and so had to merge them in one another. In the same work Bruch notices a feature of this ' Wisdom ' which is strangely at variance with her high claims (p. 138). The very earthly quality called subtilty (craft, in fact) is an essential part of her (Prov. 8 ^■^^), and she is also regarded as the best road to wealth (Prov. 3i"6, 8 is). Cf. Reuss on Wisd. 10": 'La sagesse consistait ici ^ duper les autres. ' 52 INTRODUCTION earth andjrasconversa^itMjiyijaati.' This idea, entirely foreign to "Sll IsraeU'ti s'ii beliefjrwassought to explain away by restricting the portion of humanity among which Wisdom moved to the Jewish nation only. And this is really the view of the author of Wisdom. > After describing_gg^a,i-n . susk-aaB££aL.term§_as^ "^iSM^SiiS^y ^^^ loose thinker, Greek or Jewish, of MB.tijft£gj,in_the &st nijie chapters, Ee~ffluilfater iier activity in the last ten jolely by the history and succBSSBS-irf the Jewish people. "TKeTesr^biTosophicat and less discerning the writers are who talk of Wisdom, the more unguarded we find them in their phrase- ology.'' They meant no harm ; they simply did not weigh their words. Hence we find the Son of Sirach using the strongest language : ' All wisdom,' according to his first verse, ' is from the Lord, and is with him for ever ' ; it is unfathomable in its nature, and God alone compre- hends it (1 ") ; it was, however, created (1 "), and God poured it out upon all his works. Then we come to Wisdom personified (24:^-^^). She glorifies herself ; ' I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth as a mist ' (Gen. 2 ^). 'I dwelt in high places, and my throne is on the pillar of the cloud ' (cf . Wisd . 10 "). Then follows the remarkable statement, ' in every people and nation I got a posses- sion' (24''), followed by the contradictory command of the Creator (v. 8), ' let thy tabernacle be in Jacob and thine inheritance in Israel.' It is fairly obvious that this is loose and irresponsible talk. There is no attempt to define the exact limits and function of Wisdom ; the self- glorification dies away into a comparison with cedars, cypresses, palm trees, rose plants, olives, planes, cinnamon, aspalathus, myrrh, — a mere poetic extravagance, devoid of philosophic meaning." a The A.V. made 'God' the nominative in this sentence, which was accordingly attacked as a Christian interpretation (but see Churton ad loc. ), The Revisers are probably right in making 'Wisdom' the subject, though the versions are against them. ^ Seneca, Ep., xviii. 3 (106), 'Si adfectus (auimi) corpora sunt, , . . ergo et malitia et species ejus omnes, maliguitas, invidia, superbia.' And in xix. 8 (117) he gives as the views of his school : ' Sapientiam bonum esse dicunt ; sequitur ut necesse sit illam corporalem quoque dicere. ' » Bois, p. 243 (who does not estimate ' Wisdom's ' philosophic acumen very highly), thinks he is halting between three opinions— (1) that wisdom is a mere attribute of God, (2) that it is God himself manifesting himself, (3) that it is a separate Divine personality. An objection to this personality is that Wisdom is divided among a number of individuals —all the righteous, in fact. Bois, not very pertinently, compares the qiiasi-dlvision of the three persons of the Trinity. THE CONCEPTION OF 'WISDOM' IN THE BOOK 53 It remains to examine whether the Pseudo-Solomon is more exact and systematic in his account of ' Sophia.' According to Dr. Farrar, ' Wisdom is throughout the book repeatedly personified, but never in reality hypostatised.' A review of the crucial passages (which, it may be remarked, come almost entirely from the three middle or Solomonic chapters 7-9) to a certain extent confirms this dictum ; but we must always expect to come upon careless overstatements, which are mag- nified by modern critics into deliberate philosophic definitions. The passages are as follows : 7 ^', ' she is a breath of the power of God, and a clear effluence of the Almighty.' There would be nothing much in this or in the following verse, ' an effulgence from everlasting light,' were it not that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has used the same term anaiyaa-jxa for the Son of God himself (Heb. 1 ^). But other texts certainly seem to prove that the author of Wisdom had a vague idea of o-otpia as apart from God. In 721-22^ Solomon says, ' All things that are either secret or manifest I learned, for she that is the artificer of all things taught me, even Wisdom.' In 8 ^ we are told ' She glorifleth her noble birth, in that it is given her to live with God, and the Sovereign Lord of all loved her' (cf. Prov. 8^), and in 9* that she 'sitteth by thee on thy throne.' Whether 8*, 'she is initiated into the knowledge of God, and she chooseth out for him" his works,' implies actual co-operation, may be doubted. The passage 9^, Trj a-ofjiia He is happier when he points out that the want of clearness as to the nature of ' personality ' was a constant source of confusion to the men of the time. Bruch, Weisheitslehre, p. 536, pxits the matter in a different form. Pseudo- Solomon, he thinks, was incapable of conceiving Wisdom as a mere metaphysical existence. His practical Jewish mind compelled him to make her something almost concrete. The explanation is capable of being applied to many of the expressions of the Siracide. " The R.V, of Prov. 8 ^ has, 'then I was by him as a master-woi'kman,' but the rendering is disputed. — Hast., D. B., iv. 925a. Bousset, op. cit. , p. 339, while holding that the hypostatisation of (ro0ia is pretty complete in Wisdom, referring especially to 9* (her that sitteth by thee on thy throne), thinks that Pseudo-Solomon holds a middle position between 'Aristo- bulus, ' who in Euseb. ,P.E., xrii. xii. 10, implies that the Light that was created on the Sabbath was an 'allegory' of Wisdom, and Philo, whose personification of her is at times complete. Any discovery of Philo's exact ideas as to the rela- tion of X670S and ao(pla. seems to be hopeless. ' At times X670S is the source of la ; sometimes aotpla. of X670s.' See above p. 19 n. b. Bruch, p. 349, points oat that the epithets applied by Pseudo-Solomon to Wis- dom, jToXu/iE/)^!, fii/cJxijTos, (Tuip^!, 6{i)s, and the like, are quite inconsistent with ' Divine hypostasis,' and seem to refer more to a substantial existence— one might almost say (though he does not) that of an 'angel.' 54 INTRODUCTION aov KareaKevaaas avdpawov, certainly means no more than that God ' in His wisdom' created man ; agency is not implied. Personifications are plentiful enough. In 1", She will not hold a blasphemer guiltless ; in 8 s, She is a teacher of all the past, the pre- sent, and the future ; but the force of the passage as suggesting a demi-goddess is greatly weakened by what follows (v. "), 'I deter- mined, therefore, to take her unto me to live with me,' which could hardly be said of a person coexistent with God. Whether the text 7 -^, ' She pervadeth and penetrateth all things by reason of her pure- ness,' really refers to the idea of the world-soul may be questioned, and with good reason ; for in 1 ^ it is the nffv/ia Kvplov that ' has filled the world.' Obviously the terms appropriated by philosophei's are used by this writer as his own, to be employed when they will express the view of his subject which is uppermost in his mind. It is to this loose view that we must ascribe the different applica- tions of the word ' wisdom ' which we find in this book. Philo, in one of his interminable allegories, had distinguished between wisdom, human and divine (Quis Rir. Div. Her., § 25), but in the title of our book it seems to have yet a third signification ; the sagacity, as ex- pressed in words, ot Solomon. Now, as already noted, Ave find in the first six chapters of Pseudo-Solomon's work a laudation of Divine AVisdom, personified at times, but certainly not hypostatised ; in the next three we have something very like hypostasis : in the last ten ' practical godliness '—the merest (jtpovrjcns. AVe may question if Mr. Deane is right (p. 256) when he says that ' Wisdom embraces what a Greek would call virtue'; but we can certainly follow him when he adds that 'it comprised also the notion of a deep knowledge, an appropriation of the history of God's dealings with His people, and a thorough trust in the Divine aid.' But that is not the cro(pia of Proverbs, of Baruch, of Ben-Sira.'' " The question of the relation of Pseudo-Solomon's aotj>la and Philo's X67os is not a very profitable one. It is best liismissed, as by Konig, in a few words (FAnl. in das A. T., p. 409). He cites the words of Menzel, De Gmecis in libris Kohtietli et Xoipla vestigiis, p. 66. ' Pseudo-Solomon's (rixpLa is a substantial, Philo's \670s a personal, manifestation of C4od,' says Konig. This is not quite true, for (1) the object of the writer of Wisdom is not to depict an independent being existing beside God, and (2) he does show signs of transferring the personality ot God to Wisdom as a medium (7-', 81, etc.). But besides this 'Philo ascribes to the Logos at once personality and impersonality,' which sums up the whole matter. Grimm's note on the supposed personification of Wisdom in 612-I6 is worth noticing as that ol a critic who has no preconceived theoiy to maintain. ' Wis- THE CONCEPTION OF 'WISDOM' IN THE BOOK 55 It would seem almost as if in the last few chapters the writer attempted a ' retractatio ' (in St. Augustine's sense) of what he had stated in the earlier ones. Taking those first few chapters alone, it might certainly seem as if, as Kiibel (quoted in Bissell, Apocr., p. 229) says, he 'finds the highest good not in single virtues, not in outward works of the law ; moreover, also, not in a primary sense in the inner cleansing of the heart, but in nothing else than in ia, which man makes his own by reason of his constitution (his ijrvxrj, his voCf) in his thought ; yes, even in his knowledge. The perception or knowledge of God (of God and wisdom objectively considered) is the highest good.'" It is obvious that this purely intellectual standard affords no basis dom is here not dogmatically hypostatised, but personified in a rhetorical and poetic sense. This is proved with perfect certainty by the similar descriptions in Proverbs and Siraoh, where she is depicted as a maiden who invites men to her on heights, atcrossways, and at the gates of cities, or sends her handmaidens for them (Prov. 1 20 sqq. ; 8 ^ sqq. 32 ; 9 1 sqq. ), as a mother welcoming men, as a virgin bride receiving them (Sir. 15^ ; also as a spealier in the assembly of the heavenly beings, 24 1 sqq.), and where, consequently, the personification is still more daring than in our text. For that in tho.se other cases only a personification is to be assumed, is generally acknowledged by unprejudiced philological criticism (whereas , old-fashioned orthodoxy found in these depictions, as we know, the divine Logos as the second person «f the Trinity), and is the necessary consequence of Prov. 9 1' sqq. , where Polly also, poetically personified, invites passers-by at the door of her house and on the high places. Reduced to plain prose, these descriptions imply nothing more than that. The struggle to attain wisdom is a thing competent to every man, inasmuch as she is no stranger to his intellectual life ; that she exercises a peculiar charm on all who are capable of receiving her, and that to all who earnestly strive after her manifold means and ways for that attaining are offered.' " If ia to glide into the conception of p6vr)a-is (dropping, indeed, the first term altogether in its original sense), and then shows how this same ipp6vri We find aberrations on the subject. The author of Ps. 88 seems to reject the belief in a resurrection altogether, and Koheleth (7 '*), as we have seen, almost certainly does, while the view of ' Daniel ' is remark- " As usual, the most revolutionary critics assign as late a date as possible to the chapters. Charles, Esclmt., p. 126 n. 1, ' Smend and Kuenen assign chaps. 24-27 to the fourth century ; Driver to an early post-exilic date ; Duhm (Das Buck Jesaia, p. xii) to the close of the second century B.C.,' a difference of some four hundred years ! '' It is impossible to acquit Haruack, usually so fair, of some bias in dealing with the question of the origin of belief in the resurrection of the body ' diese irrationale Hoffnung ' as he calls it{Dogmengeschichte, i. 451, n. 3). He seems to put the rise of such belief too late (cf. quotation from 2 Mace, above). No doubt he is right in saying that the resurrection of the flesh is connected with belief in a Messianic kingdom on earth, but it is not fair to assume that a writer who shows small sign of any hope of such kingdom must necessarily disbelieve in such resurrection. The passages quoted from the Apostolic Fathers (Clem. Rom., 1 Cor. 26^, 2 Cor. 9^ ; Herra. , Sim. v. vii. 2 ; Barn. 5* sqq.) do not especially connect the two ideas, though Barn. 21 seems to do so. Harnaclc further claims that in the case of St. Paul and Ignatius their belief in the resurrection of the flesh became weaker as their hope of an immediate appearance of the Messiah on earth faded away (i. 141, n.). That the dogma was first formulated in a creed of the Roman Church about the middle of the second century (i. 131 ) is noteworthy, but proves little. For a most extreme statement cf. Stade, Geschichte des Volkcs Israel, ii. 436. The ' resurrection doctrine of Pseudo-Solomon is a denial of the resurrection of the body.' But for a view of the matter differing from that of Harnack, cf. Schwally, quoted below. 62 INTRODUCTION able indeed. Dr. Charles {Eschat, p. 180) summarises it : the writer is thinking only of the coming world-kingdom of the Jews, and so con- siders only the future of those who have helped or have hindered that kingdom in an extraordinary degree. Hence Sheol is the intermediate abode of the very good and the very bad ; but the eternal place of the rest of Israel and of the Gentiles. Here, at all events, we have the resurrection of some of the wicked.^ Now this book of Daniel was probably the work of a member of that strict sect of Jews called Chasidim, the forerunners of the Pharisees, and the authors of all that was best and noblest in the creed of the latter. These are the persecuted saints of Heb. 11 ^'^'^, ' of whom the world was not worthy.' They at least preserved, in the face of the Hellenising Sadducees, the belief in the resurrection. ' Through their agency the spiritual aspirations of the Old Testament few became in the course of a century the unshakable convictions of Palestinian Judaism.' •> Of this Judaism, Palestinian or not, we seem to have the perfect expression in the book of Wisdom. We may sum up the eschatology of the book in the sense of the ordinary reader ; for it is to the ordinary reader that we must here appeal. No one who reads our stately English translation of the third chapter, representing so well as it does the sweeping periods of the Jewish rhetorician, can hesitate to say that it is one and the same picture of the same persons and their destiny. The dissecting critic, » Dr. Charles {Eschat., p. 133, notes) suggests that a partial resurrection of the wicked is taught also in the Ethiopian Enoch, chaps. 1-36. He thinks that even in Isaiah 24-27 a 'resurrection to punishment' is indicated, but his texts are not convincing as against the denunciation of absolute annihilation quoted above. i" Charles,£s(;Aai.,p.l68,whoseeicellentsummaryoftheirhistory(pp. 166-167) contains practically all that we know of the destinies of this noble body of men. But when he speaks of 'Palestinian Judaism' Dr. Charles is referring to a distinct theory of his own. He thinks that whereas the Palestinian Jews always held the belief in an intermediate state for the righteous, the Alexandrians re- garded them as entering on a blessed immortality immediately after death. He claims as exponents of this theory (p. 244) the author of Wisdom, Pliilo, the writer of 4 Maccabees, and the Essenes. The question of ' Wisdom's ' view is dealt with in the additional note on 3 '. Bonsset, Rel. des Judenthums, p. 260, thinks that in Alexandrian Philo and Wisdom, 4 Mace. , the Slavonic Enoch, and the doctrine of the Essenes, the ' Judg- ment ' was to be that of the living only, and so roundly concludes, in direct opposition to Dr. Charles, that there is no sharp differentiation between Palestinian and Alexandrian eschatology at all. THE ESCHATOLOGY OF WISDOM 63 with his disregard of context, is here at a disadvantage ; the appeal lies to common-sense against him. With the idea, then, of a blessed immortality for the righteous, there disappears completely the old half-heathen idea of the supreme good fortune of a long life" as a mark of Divine favour, vyhile a short life is to be regarded as the lot of the wicked. "We have next the detailed account of a day of judgment (4 "-5 ^s). There will be also a theocratic kingdom apparently to be established upon earth, when the Lord shall reign for evermore (3 *), in which the righteous shall have dominion over the wicked. The old idea of a temporary Jewish theo- cracy has disappeared utterly. We may quote Dr. Burney's excellent remark on the advance on all previous theories which is here displayed. ' In the earlier literature which we have examined the idea of immor- tality appears at best as a conviction of individual souls, or a hope which is nothing more than a hope, almost beyond the reach of » Cf. , however, Schwally op. cit. That writer holds that belief in the resurrection of the flesh appears (tentatively) in Job 14 '. ' There is hope of a tree if it be cut down that it will sprout again,' etc., but he thinks the idea original, contrary to popular belief, and succeeded by the writer's relapse into despair in the next few verses (pp. 109-112). He would also interpret the famous ' Redeemer' passage as meaning expectation of a j ustifioator either in this life or in another. Job, he says, certainly hoped for nothing in Sheol. Then all that he expected mu.stcome in a new life after a resurrection. Like Harnack, Schwally holds that the belief in such resurrection was based upon Messianic hopes, and had indeed a certain political motive behind it. For the restoration of Israel the living Hebrews would not be sufiicient ; the dead ones must be raised again (Isa. 26 1', as opposed to the popular theory stated in 26 1*). Nor have we any right to restrict this to the righteous only ; there is no word of such distinction. Why such arguments cannot be applied to Wisd. 3 ' it is hard to see. But, further, there is another cause for the belief in immortality generally. Schwally notes that there is no Hebrew word exactly corresponding to d8a.yaTOT\a(TToO (7 1), and Paronomasiae are, however, found in translations. Grimm cites {Mnl., p. 9) the not very convincing one from the Septuagint of Ps. 13 (14) 3^ fi^^ 7ixpe, \c^/ and ^^^12.. Of the paronomasiae so-called in Wisdom there are a great number ; it is LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK 67 pointed out the prevalence of Greek ideas in the book. With regard to the depth of knowledge underlying those ideas, we may perhaps, as has already been indicated, be sceptical ; but with respect to the use in ' Wisdom ' of Greek philosophical terms there can be no doubt, and Freudenthal employs a sound argument when he tells us that Wessely," a Hebrew scholar of the first rank, had endeavoured to translate the book into the ancient tongue, and had altogether failed : Hebrew words to express the Pseudo-Solomon's ideas could not be found. It may be noted in passing, that Dr. Freudenthal takes a most disparaging view of our book. Ben-Sira, he thinks, represents a genuine Hebrew philosophy : Wisdom, ' a heterogeneous product of the Jewish and Greek spirits, remained for a thousand years out of the ken of the Jews.'*' Admitting, then, that we have here a Greek original, what light does the language throw on the character and attainments of the author? Here again we encounter considerable exaggeration on the part of the critics. 'He shows,' says Farrar (p. 4046), 'a singular mastery of the Greek language in its later epoch of mingled decadence and development.' He was 'a master of the Greek vocabulary ' (405a). This we may contrast with the note on 5 ". Now with regard to the earlier chapters this is more or less true ; but no candid scholar will refuse to acknowledge that between these and the last few there is a world of difference both in style and language ; so much so that Bichhorn conjectured, with some show of reason, that the latter half of the book was written in the author's probable, however, that many may be assigned to another reason rather than to deliberate play on words. Of the great quantity adduced by Grimm {Mnl. , p. 7) we may accept Farrar's selection ; worafiol . . . diroTd/j-us (5 ^), drpairbv . . . TpAirios (5 1"), o-Tevoxwpiav . . . aTevdl^oi'Tai. (5 3), wpodoffla , , . irpoaSoKla, (17 12), S.pya . . . Ipya (14 5), pia-ovs . . . pmras (12 6). » Cf. Grimm, Einl., p. 17 n. 6. Wessely's authority is not much enhanced by the fact that he seems to have believed the book to be a genuine work of Solomon. S. J. Frankel (1830) seems, according to Grimm (loc. cit.), to have made a similar attempt at translation. Dr. MargoUouth remarks (p. 297) that the connection of Wisdom with the Midrash has never been worked out, and adds that ' it would he more profitable than the comparison of Wisdom with Greek philosophy. ' •> MargoUouth in the Expositor (1900), i. 189, points out that even in the time of Melito the book had passed out of Jewish knowledge, for the Jew whom he asked about it identified Wisdom with Proverbs, and knew of no other book, presumably, than the latter. 68 INTRODUCTION youth (before, we might add, he had learned Greek properly), and that the first few chapters were the more scholarly and careful product of his later days. At the risk of repeating what has already been said by others, we must here summarise the features which are considered to prove the writer's deep acquaintance with the Greek language. (a) He uses compounds " with great freedom : as viripfiaxos (10 2", Ifi "), o/jLoiowaBris (7 ^), yrjyevrjs (7 ^), Trokvxpovios (2 '", 4 *), oKiyoxpovios (9 5), no\ipovTii (Qli^), ■Kerpo^oKos (5^2), navTohivap.os {T'% 11", 18 1^), navTenla-Konos (7 2^), (f>i\dv6pa>Tros (1 ^ 7 ^'', 12 '^), KOKOTexvos (1 *, 15 *), (iSfXc^oKrdvos (10 ^), (T7rXayxvo(j}ayos (12 ''), •yfi'Cirtoup'ydy (13 ''). The following indeed appear to be his own invention : TrporoVXao-ros (7 ', 10 '), probably copied by the Fathers (cf. Deane's note on 7 '), vrjinoKTovos (11 '), TfKvo(j)6vos (14 ^^), yevecnapxqs (13 ^), KaKopnxdoi (15 '), fipaxvreXrjt (15 "), peTaKipva(T6ai (16 ^^), fltex^fm (16'). (6) In addition to these there are cited various expressions which are held to prove deep acquaintance with Greek civilisation and Greek customs ; 14 ' may allude to the placing of images of protecting gods at the prow of vessels. But this custom was common to ancient heathen nations (cf. Deane's note ad loc); 2 * certainly refers to the use of garlands at banquets — but these were used by Hellenized Jews (cf. Judith 1513), and the crowning of victors in a contest (4 2) is open to the same criticism. 13 ^^ shows acquaintance with the custom of setting up little shrines {oiKrfpaTo) for domestic gods, and 8 * proves a general acquaintance with the fact that there are such things as mysteries and initiates. If all this knowledge was displayed in 200 B.C., it certainly would be rather striking; but in the reign of Caligula it proves nothing more than that our author was an educated person. (c) Of ordinary rhetorical devices he employs many. ' Chiasmus' is frequent, occurring even in the first two verses of the book. But 6 1"-20 contains a fair example of ' Sorites.' The accumulation of epithets, as in 7 ^^■^3, is common to the writer with Philo, St. Paul, and later writers ; and the curious fact that in ' Wisdom ' they number exactly thrice seven points, as Grimm remarked, rather to eastern than to western doctrines. - " On the facility with which the Hellenistic writers invented new componnds as they were wanted, cf. Winer (ed. Moulton), p. 26, and generally, on the (Questionable acquaintance of such writers with Greek, p. 23 and the notes there. LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK 69 {d) Of alliteration and assonance or juxtaposition of similarly sounding words we have enough and to spare. The best instances of the latter (intentional, that is) are found in 1 ', ayanrjO-aTe . . . ^povrjtraTe . . . ^rjTTirraTe ; eV dyadorrjTi . . . eV AnXoTrjn ; 7 ", dSoXoor . . . d(l)66vs . . . fiirpencos ; 4^, iroOovaiv . . . d7Te^6ov(Tav \ 6^', napobevireo . . . crvi^odevfTat ', 12^^, Tratali' . . . e/xTraiyjuov . . . Trmyviots* Others, as we shall see, may be otherwise accounted for. On all these grounds Pseudo-Solomon is claimed as a kind of Jewish Isocrates, but Bois in his Essai critique goes further, and would have him a poet too.'' He discovers'' (p. 212) iambic trimeters, as in 17 '''. ovOev yap iunv (^6/3off ei prj 7rpo8o(TLa. i " is, according to him, made up of a trochaic trimeter and a trochaic tetrameter catalectic, as thus : KaraKpivel Se diKatos Kapojv tovs ^wvras do"ej3etff. KOL veorrjs reXecr^eto'a Td)(€v S^ii &(l>poat.v els Sveidos IpX^rai, 70 INTRODUCTION educated hearer of a Greek rhetorician in the schools of Alexandria? We know that the learner of a new language, if he belongs to an intelligent race accustomed to fluency of talk, is apt to appropriate the rhetorical element in the foreign tongue almost before he learns its grammar. Of this we have abundant instances in the case of English-speaking Bengalis. It is by no means certain that a native Greek would not have regarded the fervid outpourings of Pseudo- Solomon very much as we do the fervid rhetoric of the intelligent Babu. That this is no mere fancy may be argued from startling facts. The first few chapters of Wisdom undoubtedly represent the writer's Greek at its best; they have probably been touched and retouched with the literary file till they are as perfect as the author could make them. Yet in the very middle of these chapters (4 ^^) we find the statement, ' the giddy whirl of desire goes a-digging for the innocent mind,' the author having mistaken ij.eTaXKeva> (' to mine ') for fif T-aXXacro-to (' to change '). It is no slip : he repeats it in 16 ^.'^ That in H 2", (piXo'yjfvx^os,^ a common enough word meaning ' cowardly,' is used as meaning 'a lover of souls,' is not much to be wondered at when we consider the character of the last few chapters. The writer there loses himself — there is no other phrase for it — in the mazes of a foreign tongue, and much of his turgid and even grotesque diction may be referred to this cause." If we are right in this supposition, we have a ready explanation of several peculiarities of the book. (a) Grimm {Einl., p. 6) notes the constant recurrence of what he calls 'pet expressions' of the writer. He collects some thirty of these, of which it will suffice to give a few examples. The word QTrdro/iOf occurs seven times ; irapobeviiv five times ; the rare word " Traxv-q in 5 " for &xvn is probably another mistake ; and the alteration in meaning of words like birXoiroiiu might be ascribed to ignorance also, but of. Winer 23 (6), who gives a long list of words so altered in meaning. i" He thinks, moreover, that Bpaaijs means ' savage ' (11 1'), and that dSiKriSiivai. means 'to be punished' (14 29), but see note ad loc. ' The most remarkable instance of all, however, if Ed. Pfleiderer (Heraklit, p. 330 sqq.) is right, is to be found in the case of the word dyepuxla, 2 », of. notes ad loc. Of real ignorance of Greek on the part even of professed translators, at least of the Apocryphal books, the recent discovery of the Hebrew original of part of Ecclesiasticus furnishes us with some striking examples (cf. Ryssel in Kautzsch, Apokr., i. 243). LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK 71 (caraSui/aoTcueiv, thrice ; eiepyerf ij/, four times. Of words to which the writer attaches his own sense we have yej/fVeir, for ' species,' four times; i'lc^aa-is, with the meaning of 'result,' thrice; and so forth. The explanation of these repetitious is probably poverty of diction ; the writer's vocabulary is peculiar but not extensive. (6) To a kindred cause — that want of knowledge of synonyms which is a pretty sure test of ignorance of a language — we may ascribe the tautologies which become frequent towards the end of the book. In the single passage, 16 i"^, we have the following : eKoXao-drjcrav— KoXdaeas : iindvfiiav — eVi^u/ioOcTer : ope^eas — ope^iv : ^ivrjv yeicriv — ^evris yeiKTfcos : Tpocfirjv — Tpocprjv : ivSfeis — ivSeiau : ini\6(iv — inrjKBev : Under this head we may probably class many of the Instances which Grimm (p. 7) would assign to intentional juxtaposition of similar words, as in 5 '*, navoTrkiav — OTrXoTroirja-fi. ; 2 '^, ISias — ISioTrjTos ; 17 ^^, dva-oKvKTOjf — SXva-fi ; 9 ^, Kpia-iv — KpLvri ; 17 ^, voaovtrrjs — evocrovv ; 17 '", Xafiirpa — KaTfXdpwfTo ; 19 ^', tj/ktov — fvrrjKTov. The author is in- capable of variety. We may add to Grimm's instances fiapeia — fiapvTfpoi (17 *'), 68r]y6v — oSoiiropias (18 ^). (c) Lastly, to this fact — that the writer is handling a language with which he is only half-acquainted — we may ascribe some at least of the difficulties which we meet in trying to find out his real meaning (e.g. in 17 ^), rrjs /xij deapovpivrjs cKfivrjs o\|/'f as lyyoCvro x^ 'P<* i"" /3Xf wd/iewa. Much is made of the use by our author of the technical terms of Greek life : as (TTi(j)avr](jiop€'iv, Trpvrdveis, nop.mveiv, and the like. But does he always understand them? He certainly did not under- stand the meaning of ^pa^eieiv, which means ' to act as umpire in a contest ' ; he thought it meant to ' give the victory to a com- petitor.' St. Paul (Col. 3 '^) knew the significance of the word better. In any case, no one will dispute the opinion of Grimm as to the last few chapters (Einl., p. 7). ' The writer's effort to produce a lively and picturesque representation here breaks away from his formal argu- ments, and he commits the error of tricking out historical material, intended for doctrinal instruction, with fantastic adornments and exaggerations; those additions to the Mosaic account which the author permits himself cannot in all cases be even justified by later tradition. The parallel drawn between the Egyptians' sins and their punishment, and also that between their plagues and the Israelites' blessings, are overstated and wearisome, and at times degenerate into trifling and childishness. It is an unnatural and unpardonable 72 INTRODUCTION mistake to present the long dogmatic-historical treatise, ch. 11-19 (in bulk the greater half of the book), in the form of a prayer.' It is needless to say that these considerations in no way detract from the value of the book, either as the work of a good man or as representing the ' hope full of immortality,' which had only just established itself as a doctrine among the chosen people of God. § 9. Unity of the Book. The subject of the unity and homogeneity of ' Wisdom ' is very gene- rally dismissed with the remark that the hand and style of one writer are traceable throughout. This may be so, but it does not exclude the possibility that that writer may have composed different parts of the book at different times, under different circumstances, and perhaps even with a different object in view. A greater contrast, for example, could hardly be found than that between the Goethe of the first part of Faust and the philosophic Goethe of the second part, which Dr Cheyne {Job and Solomon, p. 12) quotes. Unluckily, all attempts at analysis of the book on the lines indicated have been discredited beforehand by the extravagant theories put forward by early critics. Houbigant^ suggested, and not without some show of reason, that the latter chapters were the work of a translator who, having turned the first few chapters from Hebrew into Greek, added the last him- self. It is certainly true that the acknowledged Hebraisms of the book are almost entirely (Farrar, 4046) confined to chs. 1-11 ^. This earlier portion Houbigant, in accordance with the views of his time, ascribed to Solomon himself. Eichhorn (Einleitung in die Apokr. Schriften, 1795, pp. 86 sqq.), on grounds presently to be examined, divided the book sharply into two parts (chs. 1-11 ' and 11 ^ to end), and Bretschneider (1804) dissected the first of these, making chs. 1-6 * a separate fragment of Palestinian origin, 6^-10 another, and the rest of the book a third work altogether. But the climax of fanciful criticism had already been reached by Nachtigal (1799), who is said to have dis- ' So many misquotations and false references to Houbigant exist, that it may be well to give his exact words from Notae Oriticae, Francof., 1777, p. ocxvi : ' Nee tamen putandum est Librum Sapientiae totum esse unius ejusdemque Autoris, sed potius partem priorem in qua extant et vaticinationes et sententiae Salomonis Proverbiis fere similes esse ipsius Salomonis, partem posteriorem alterius soriptoris ; forte ejus qui priorem Graece oonvevterat quique addiderat de suo partem posteriorem.' UNITY OF THE BOOK ^j covered in the book seventy-nine antiphons in praise of Wisdom composed by different authors (Farrar, iloa ; cf. Grimm, Einl, 14).^ The soberer hypothesis of Eichhorn was likely to suffer from these later extravagances, but he had certainly some grounds for his doubts as to homogeneity. That the different parts were by different authors he did not maintain; rather he considered that the later chapters were the work of this author's youth, the earlier of his mature age. But he pointed out (1) that in the earlier part the history of Israel was treated with sobriety and restraint, in the last chapters with gross exaggeration ; (2) that at first f reethinking is the cause of all vices— afterwards idolatry ; (3) that first virtue, then the recognition of God, is the basis of immortality ; (4) that throughout the first section no sign of particularism i" is to be found, while the second is full of it ; (5) that (ro(j)ia, the mainspring of the first part, is only even men- tioned once in the second, and is then used of God's wisdom in guiding Noah's Ark. To these points he might have added the complete degeneration of style which is evident in the last few chapters— inces- sant tautology, accompanied by obscurity of expression, and at times apparently ignorance of Greek. With these objections Gfrorer {Philo, ii. pp. 202 sqq.) dealt, but not with distinguished success." With the fourth point, which is ' The question is by no means dead. Kohler in the Jewish JSncydopadia, s.v. ' Wisdom,' maintains the opinion that ' 918-1922 jg devoid of all connection with what precedes. ' 'The "whole appears to be part of a Passover Haggadah recited in Egypt with reference to Gentile surroundings, and accordingly abounds in passages of a genuinely Haggadic character.' Chap. 10, accordingto this writer, is merely inserted as a connecting link between the Solomonic chapters and the ' Passover Haggadah. ' >■ The supposed instance of particularism in 6*-'', quoted by Farrar Hib, is in reality nothing of the kind ; the meaning of the text is simply that a man in high office will be called upon to render a stricter account in proportion to the advan- tages he has had. ' Grimm {Mrdeitung, p. 10) is not much more successful. Dealing with another objection of Eichhorn's, viz., that the part of Solomon is dropped from chap. 11 onwards, he points out that even in the first chapters the invective against sexual licence is foreign to Solomon's character, which supports the theory here main- tained — namely, that the Solomonic chapters are superimposed on an original work. Bois, p. 304, points out that after all there is not so entire a division between the later ( ' retributive ') and the earlier (eschatological) chapters ; for the idea of retribution ' according to sin ' is fully set forth in 3 1" (cf. notes there). He acknowledges the disappearance of parallelism in the latter chapters (p. 212), 74 INTRODUCTION thoroughly well grounded, he could not wrestle at all. The second, it may be remarked, explains itself away on the hypothesis which we have adopted — that apostate Jews raised to high positions are aimed at in this book. With them it would no doubt be true that the Epi- curean tenets of Koheleth led to apostasy from their own religion, and this in turn to an easy acceptance of idolatry. Hence both parts of the book would equally apply to them. "While fully agreeing with the belief that the book is the work of one writer, the present writer would venture to point out the peculiar and indeed anomalous nature of one section,^ that, namely, included between chs. 6'* and 9i8_tjje whole of chapters 7-9— with a couple of introductory (or conjunctive) verses. In these three chapters are included the most peculiar, and in some respects the most objection- able, parts of the book ; the references to Platonic philosophy and the direct claims to Solomonic authorship. This latter, if we accept the ideas of Kuenen on the subject, is not nearly so innocent as some would make it appear.'' But the fact that the very l^ernel of a book is contained in three chapters in the middle of it is surely no reason for eliminating those chapters. It is not necessary to eliminate them ; only to point out that they possibly belong to a later period of development of the writer's ideas, and were inserted by him with a definite purpose ; that they can be removed without injuring the general construction of the book; and that they contain statements in advance of, if not inconsistent with, those elsewhere put forward. 1. With regard to definite purpose : apart from the claim to Solomonic authorship, only here conveyed, it is here only that we find any trace of that attempt to reconcile Jewish and Greek philosophy but remarks that it is gradual, and therefore does not imply different author- ship. Gfrorer's theory is that practically adopted by Westcott in Smith's D. B., viz. that the iirst part is theoretic, the second historical, consisting in fact of ' pieces justiflcatives ' to support the statements of the earlier chapters. " This separation of chs. 7-9 from the rest of the hook is no new thing. We find it in Loriuus, Corn, h Lapide, Tirinus and Calovius, quoted by Grimm {Einl, p. 4 n. 2). •i Cf. Bickell quoted in Cheyne, Job and Solomon, p. 208 n. 1, as maintaining that all the Solomonic passages in Koheleth are interpolations, made presumably to facilitate the recognition of the work as canonical. Possibly the author of ' Wisdom ' (or an interpolator) had such hopes. UNITY OF THE BOOK 75 which Siegfried {Philo, p. 23) seems to regard as one main purpose of the writer. It is to be questioned whether such purpose is really dis- coverable at all ; but if it is, it is certainly only to be found here. 2. In chap. 6 -^ " the writer states his intention of immediately trac- ing the operations of wisdom in the history of the world, disregarding literary rivalries, and this history, we may point out, had been begun in 4 1""^* ; then comes the abrupt remark that ' a multitude of wise men is salvation to the world,' and we only recover our philosophy of history in chap. 10. Leaving out the questionable chapters, we have a connected statement. ' I will trace her out from the beginning of creation and bring the knowledge of her into clear light, and I will not pass by the truth, neither will I take pining envy for my companion in the way, because envy shall have no fellowship with wisdom. Wisdom guarded to the end the first formed father of the world,' etc., and so follows quite consecutively that sketch of the work of Wisdom in history which the author seems to have planned, but certainly never executed. 3. So we here find language and ideas differing from those current in the remainder of the book. With regard to language, this question may be answered at once. All the distinctively Platonic expressions are contained in these three chapters. The supposed exceptions are references to npoyoLa in 14^ and 17 ^ (for which see the notes on those passages), to vXj) afiopcpos in 11" (also questionable, cf. notes), and the ' soul of the world,' which can hardly be identified in the ' spirit of the Lord ' (not Wisdom) that ' hath filled the world,' in 1 ', but is indi- cated under the name of ' Wisdom,' perhaps a little more distinctly, in 7 ^* and 8 '—both included in the questionable section. That the body is the ' source of sin ' is simply not affirmed or assumed, either in 1 * or in 8 2° ; all that is said is that some bodies are held in bondage or defiled by sin— surely a common idea enough wherever the results of sin in disease or loss of vigour are apparent. The other allusions men- tioned by Farrar, 4076, may be similarly taken as the commonplaces of all philosophy, whether Jewish or Greek. On the other hand, the undoubtedly Platonic theories of the four cardinal virtues (8 ') (perhaps) of the pre-esistence of souls (7', H^^-^"), and (perhaps) the description of the body as oppressing the soul (9 '5, » Ewald {Oesch. Israels, iii. 2, p. 550) thought that the original work extended to 622 only. He says, 'in these first six chapters there is no word too much or too little, ' The thought with which the writer began is absolutely complete, and concluded even in outward form. •](, INTRODUCTION see notes ad loo. and Additional Note A), are all contained In these three chapters. The same may be said of the allusions, such as they are, to Greek art and science. If the three chapters under consideration be simply left out, the book will not suffer as regards its construction, and it will represent a Jewish theory of the world untainted with Greek dilettantism. But not only do we find here, and practically nowhere else in the book, Platonic views expressed in Platonic language : we have here also the plain statement of views as to Wisdom, which amount to claiming for her existence as a separate entity." Farrar's statement that ' wisdom is throughout the book repeatedly per- sonified, but never in reality hypostatised,' is only true if we omit these three chapters. Passages like 9 ^, 'Give me Wisdom, her that sitteth by thee on thy throne,' or 8 3, ' the Sovereign Lord of all loved her,' are very hard to explain away. Of all those which Siegfried (in Kautzsch, i. 477) has collected to prove the writer's extreme views of Wisdom as a person, two only (1 S ' Wisdom will not enter into a soul that deviseth evil,' and 1^, ' Wisdom is a spirit thatloveth man ' — with the variant, ' the spirit of wisdom is loving to man ' — ' and will not hold a blasphemer guiltless for his lips ; because God beareth witness,'etc.) are found outside the Solomonic chapters ; and the reader can at once judge for himself how much weaker and vaguer these latter texts are. Of personification there are plenty of examples, though with the dis- tinct mention of a-o(pl.a only in the first ten chapters and in one verse (14 ") later on. Under the circumstances it is hardly exaggerating to say that the chapters 7-9 contain a doctrine peculiar'' to themselves. It is not suggested that we have here the work of a different writer : the resemblances of style are too striking for that ; the ingenious com- pound words ; the dna^ Xf-yo/ieva ; the assonances (Farrar, 405) and the » Reuss, p. 531. What we have read before in this book does not exceed ' une personnification po^tique ou rh^torique d'an altribut du Dieii cr^ateur. loi, il y a positivement quelque chose de plus. La sagesse est mainteuant repre- sentee tres-nettement comme line substance propre, une emanation de la Divinite, un esprit (on I'esprit) de Dieu, possidant I'intelligence et la volonte, et ce qui dans le langage des anciens prophetes, n'etait encore qu'une circonlocutiou rh^torique devient une conception metaphysique. II ne manque plus grand' chose pour faire de cette sagesse une personne, oe qu'elle est devenue effective- ment, sous le nom de Logos, dans le systeme de Philon.' ■> It is, moreover, to say the least, doubtful if Qi^-n does not contain a doctrine (the impossibility of man's recognising God of his own unaided power) directly opposed to 13 1', where we are told that it was his duty to find out God. Cf. Gfrorer, PhUo, ii. 212. UNITY OF THE BOOK 77 rhythm are as remarkable here as anywhere in the book. But 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. It seems indeed extraordinary that later critics should have so entirely neglected or condemned the sensible opinion of Heinrich Ewald {Gesch. des Volkes Israel, iii. 2, 250 sqq.) : ' Up to a certain point,' he says (with him the certain point is 6 22), ' the initial thought is carried out and rounded off.' . . . But now the author must ha/ce considered it well to continue his work in another fashion. All that follows after 6 ^^ we can easily recognise as the work of the same author, and as naturally attaching itself to what goes before ; and at times we have brilliant flashes of his genius: but on the whole the style and the matter have changed both In generals and in particulars. Possibly two considerations may have influenced the writer. Firstly, it seemed to him well to send the book into the world recommended as definitely the work of Solomon ; secondly, he desired to let that world know his true Jewish feeling, and understand that the wisdom which he praised could only be reconciled with the true religion of Jehovah. And then we come to the prayer: 'the prayer,' says Ewald, ' might very well end with the general expressions of chap. 9,' but it does not : ' and so with chap. 10 begins a third or historical part of the book.' This is practically the view of the present editor, who holds, however, that the three Solomonic chapters were added after the composition of chaps. 1-6 and 10-19. What could possibly be more consecutive than 6^^, 'I will trace her out from the beginning of creation and bring the knowledge of her into clear light, and I will not pass by the truth,' and 10 ^, ' Wisdom guarded to the end the first formed father of the world that was created alone, and delivered him ' This would account for the downright contradictions which editors have so much trouble to explain away, e.g. in 6 1^ sqq. we are told that wisdom is only too ready to come to men who will receive her. 'In 8 is Solomon is going about to get her. In 7 ' he prays, but not very distinctly, for wisdom. She comes to him, and he finds out what benefits she brings. Then in 8^1 he again prays that he may get her. Possibly this last passage refers to possession of her as a wife, 78 INTRODUCTION out of his own transgression,' and what follows thereafter? A perfect history of Wisdom in the lives of the patriarchs is the natural sequence of 6 22. It follows : the intervening chapters are either an interpolation or a later addition. Quite recently more attempts have been made, on far less conserva- tive lines, to divide the book into separate compositions. "W. Weber, in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift filr wissenschafUiche Theol., xlvii. (1904) 145-169, endeavours to prove that no less than four treatises are amalgamated in the one traditional book of Wisdom. His arguments are chiefly based on the difference in the views of idolatry discovered in various parts of the work — the worship of the elements, of men, and of beasts— and also on such well-worn and thoroughly discussed points as the disappearance of parallelism in the later chapters. His division, which cannot be regarded as other than arbitrary, is as follows : chs. 1-5 are an eschatological treatise ; 6-11 ^ is the real Book of Wisdom ; 11 ^-19 22 is the book of God's way of punishment, and there is also an interpolated Book of Idols (presumably 13 and 14 to V. 21 ; 14 2-7, moreover, being regarded as an interpolation). Similarly Kohler in the Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. ' Wisdom of Solomon,' divides the book into three parts (1-6, 7-9 '', and 9 '^ to end), arguing that these cannot be by the same author, on account of difference of style and subject. Lastly, Lincke, Samaria und seine Propheten, p. 135, seeks to prove that while the first part is by a Samaritan patriot, the latter half (12 '" to end) is a forgery by an Alexandrian Jew. Of all such efforts the words of Mr. Porter {Semitic Studies, etc., p. 247) may be used with conviction, ' the analyses do not agree, and the grounds are not convincing.' § 10. The Manuscripts aud Versions. The editor does not profess to have handled the Greek MSS. of Wisdom. During the last hundred years, since the classic edition of Holmes and Parsons (1798-1827), for a full account of which see Swete's Introduction, pp. 185 sqq., these have been dealt with over and over again, and the last word concerning them would seem to have been said, though something may no doubt yet be gleaned from a careful study of the better cursive MSS. Of this we have a good example in Margoliouth's collation of the cursive 254 as contained in his article in J. E. A. S. quoted above. It may be here noted that some MSS. de- THE MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS 79 scribed by Holmes and Parsons, in accordance with their information, as cursives, are really uncials. The fine Venetian codex (Saec. viii.), of which, however, part only is now at Venice, and the rest at Rome, was regarded as a cursive, and numbered 23. Students of apparatus critici will do well to remember this : the authority of 23 is widely different from that of, say, 248, which generally agrees with it. Fritzsche adopts the notation of Holmes and Parsons, be it observed ; and with his apparatus criticus, combined with Swete's and (with reservations) that of Deane, we must, pending the promised publication of the great Cambridge edition of the LXX., be content. Discoveries of further texts are of course always possible, and these may modify our views of certain passages, but are not likely to affect the general conspectus of a book like Wisdom. In the meanwhile, a uniform system of notation for the existing uncial MSS. is greatly to be desired. It is no longer customary to designate the Latin version of "Wisdom and of Sirach by the name of 'Vulgate,' which implies the authorship or at least the correction of Jerome. That he did not touch these two books we have already seen, and ' Old Latin ' is the common term used to describe this version (iL in this edition). That it is full of ' Africanisms ' is apparent to the most casual reader. This is hardly the place to discuss such peculiarities minutely, but it is a fact that scores of words occur for which our only other authority is to be found in African writers like TertuUian, Apuleius, and Augustine. We nevertheless note the warning of Kennedy in Hast. D. B., iii. 54 : ' It must be borne in mind that the Latin literature of the second and third centuries which we possess is almost exclusively African ; and so we are in danger of labelling with that name a type of diction which may well have prevailed throughout the Latin-speaking pro- vinces of the Roman Empire. ... In short, the current investigation of Late-Latin is more and more tending to reduce the so-called Africanisms, and to establish a wider basis for their occurrence.' Indeed, the present editor has been able to note one or two cases in which words supposed to be peculiar to African writers occur in inscriptions from other countries. Unfortunately, Professor Burkitt's striking article on ' The Old Latin and the Itala,' in Texts and Studies, vol. ii., does not deal with the Apocrypha at all. The language of the Latin Wisdom and Sirach yet remains to be investigated from his point of view. It would be ?o INTRODUCTION outside the scope of the present work to pursue such investigation : we must be content to refer, for the variant readings of the Latin (many of them of great exegetical importance), to the works of Vercellone, Sabatier, and the numerous minor treatises mentioned in Hast. D. B., iv. 8896. In this edition special attention has been paid to the variations of the Syriac versions. Of these three are now available : the Peshitto, printed in Walton's Polyglot, and also, with slight differences, from a Brit. Mus. MS. by Lagarde {Libri apocr. Vet. Test. Syriace, Lips. 1861); the Hexaplar, published by Ceriani in Monumenta Sacr. et Prof., vol. vii., Milan, 1874; and the fragment of a Palestinian version from a Bodleian MS. recently made known by Mr. Gwilliam in Anecdota Oxonieiisia (the lacunae conjecturally filled up by Mr. J. F. Stenning). With regard to the Peshitto, a point must be noticed which seems hitherto to have escaped the attention of scholars. Down to the end of chap. 10 of Wisdom, the translation, though occasionally para- phrastic, is never entirely erratic. From that point onwards it would almost seem that another interpreter had taken the task in hand, who had little or no knowledge of Greek. He seizes on a single word in the verse which he can understand, and weaves round it a web of his own construction, generally with reference to subjects alluded to in the immediate context. For purposes of textual criticism, therefore, this portion of the translation is almost valueless, though Dr. Margoliouth has utilised a few passages for comparison with the Armenian and other versions. Many of these aberrations are noted in the Commentary. The Hexaplar Syriac" has been used throughout. It is a render- ing of Origen's Septuagint text, and is understood to have been the work of Paul, bishop of Telia in Mesopotamia, and to have been written in 616-617 a.d. All that has been said of its slavish adherence to the letter of the Septuagint (S wete, Introd. , p. 114) is perfectly true ; it presents a perfectly unintelligent rendering of the Greek, supple- mented here and there by marginal notes in an almost contemporary hand, and occasionally by much later annotations, identifying certain ' Dr. Barnes, in his defence of the Ambrosian MS. (the Hexaplar) in The Peshitta Text of Chronicles, Camb. , 1897, is concerned only with its relation to the Massoretic text, and does not refer to the version of Greek books like ' Wisdom.' THE MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS 8i words with the Greek they are intended to represent. Once or twice, as in 12 •*, the older notes are valuable, but as a rule the text is too literal to afford much help. For examples of slavishness we may quote 4 *, 5 ', etc. (cf . notes ad loc). At times this version does violence to the usual Syriac order of words by adhering exactly to their position as they appear in the Greek. Its comparatively late date is shown by (1) the continual use not only of ^^ j (8i) but of Vn (fit v) for the Greek particles ; (2) the transliteration not merely of kwSvuos and dvdjKri, which had become naturalised Syriac words, but even of fiaXXov and aiiTo^dri) ; (3) the painful breaking up of every word which contains the prefix ev- or koko- into corresponding Syriac expressions. In short, it is not classical Syriac at all, and a comparison of it with the Peshitto induces us to believe that centuries must have separated the two. It is to be noted that the Greek text which the translator obviously followed approximates more nearly to Fritzsche's than to Swete's, and that wherever variations occur, these are almost always in accordance with the readings of the cursive MS. 261. Lastly, we may observe that the main differences from the literal renderings occur in chaps. 18 and 19 (cf. notes ad loc). Either the translator had grown weary and careless, like Pseudo-Solomon himself, or he had a different text from our own before him. Of the Palestinian version we have but a fragment, containing a few verses of chaps. 9 and 10. It is understood that this version is that of the Malkite (or Greek) church in Palestine and Egypt (Nestle in Hast. D. B., iv. 6496), and that it is written in ' a dialect more akin to that of the Jewish Targums.' Our fragment is too brief to display any wide discrepancies from the Syriac of the Peshitto, with the exception of one curious form mentioned in the notes. On this version generally, see Burkitt in Jour, of Theol. Stud., ii. 175, who, however, says nothing of the fragments of the Apocrypha. With regard to the Arabic version, a long-standing error needs to be corrected. It is commonly supposed that here, as in some of the historical books (Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, cf. Burkitt in Hast. D.B.,i. 137), the Arabic translator simply gave his own rendering of the Peshitto. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In no important instance does the Arabic copy the aberrations of the Syriac. Often paraphrastic, it never strays far from the Greek text, and is occasionally more accurate than the Old Latin. In determining between various readings it is of considerable value, and it is diflicult F 82 INTRODUCTION to believe, if ttie late dates assigaed to such versions of the other parts of Scripture are correct, that this is not a far earlier translation. Of the Armenian version the editor can only speak at second hand. That it is 'word-true' far more than the Syriac is vouched for by Conybeare in Hast. D. B., i. 151, but the greatest care must be exercised In accepting the Armenian variants as stated e.g. by Deane. The collation of Beusch was relied upon for many years : it is now under- stood to be both inaccurate and imperfect ; and in the passages where the Armenian is cited the editor has considered only those variations which are vouched for by Professor Margoliouth. The Authorised English Version of the Apocrypha is not to be compared to that of the Old Testament either in accuracy or in literary merit. This seems to have been the result of the practical surrender of it into the hands of one man, Andrew Downes. Selden, Table Talk (quoted by Lupton in Hast. D. B. , v. 2546), explains the method pursued, which he considered excellent, but which seems to us hasty. In ' Wisdom ' Downes was fortunately influenced to a great extent by the vivid and nervous Genevan translation. His best renderings are those which correspond with those of that version (of. notes passim). But the English is at times too diffuse ; at times quite inadequate to express the meaning of the Greek. And the same faults, due probably to the same cause, are to be observed in the English Revised Version. According to the Revisers' own preface, the Book of Wisdom fell ultimately into the hands of a single Reviser, and that one of the New Testament company. According to Dr. Lupton's suflBciently keen * estimate of the revised version of the Apocrypha, ' Wisdom ' is one of the best translated books (Hast. JD. B., v. 269a). To the ordinary scholar it will seem as if the best readings had invariably been » After noticing one or two passages (1 ■', 7 ^, 17 is) in wliich an improvement on the Authorised Version is effected by the Reviser, Dr. Lnpton adduces two passages in which the characteristic fault of the N.T. revision— unnecessary change— is conspicuous: (1)8', where 'soberness and understanding, righteous- ness and courage' is substituted for 'temperance and prudence, justice and fortitude'— a very crucial instance; (2) similarly in 11 is^ 'being deceived they worshipped serpents void of reason, and wild beasts,' which almost repeats the Genevan version, is replaced by ' they were led astray to worship irrational reptiles and wretched vermiu ' ; the change is not for the better. Of. the Pre- face to tliis work. SYNOPSIS OF THE BOOK 83 relegated to the margin, while it is impossible to agree with Dr. Lupton (ubi supra, 2675) that in ' Wisdom ' ' the versions have been freely resorted to and with very happy efifect.' It would be difiicult to find many passages in which the Reviser has been influenced by any translation more recondite than the Vulgate. § 11. Synopsis of the Book. If by a synopsis is meant an analysis of a work orderly arranged, in which each section follows naturally on its predecessor as containing kindred or resulting matter, and in which a regular argument is pursued to the end, then no synopsis of 'Wisdom' is possible. More to the purpose would be a table of contents arranged under heads in the manner of Dr. Charles's Index to his Eschatology. Few editors have taken the trouble to engage in the thankless task of dissection ; a running analysis is sufficient for Farrar and for Grimm, who, however, is at great pains to show the coherence of succeeding sections. Gregg's synopsis is the fullest, but except with regard to the last four chapters, where five contrasts between Israel and Egypt are more or less systematically worked out, his analysis amounts to little more than a catalogue raisonne of the kind alluded to. Blunt's brief conspectus, with modifications, may here suffice us. Sect. A. Wisdom with regard to human life (chaps. 1-6). § 1. Introductory : the spirit in which Wisdom should be taught (1 !■"). § 2. God created man for life and not for death— life through righteousness (1 i2-i5^_ § 3. The Epicurean position stated (1 16-2 2°). § 4. The truth about death and life (2 "-3 ■!>). § 5. Acknowledgment of their folly by the adherents of Unwisdom at the Judgment Day (ch. 5). § 6. Connecting link to introduce the historical survey in chaps. 10-19 (ch. 6, and especially as a connecting clause 6 22-25). Sect. B. The superimposed Solomonic chapters (7-9). S4 INTRODUCTION Sect. C. Illustrations of the conflict between Wisdom and Un- wisdom. S 1. The Patriarchal history (10 i"). § 2. The story of Israel before the Exodus (1016-12). § 3. The history of Idolatry (13-15). § 4. The history of Israel after the Exodus (16-19). Here Gregg's analysis of the last four chapters may be safely adopted, viz. : A series of five contrasts between the fortunes of Israel and Egypt, in respect of— (1) Animals (16 >»). (a) Quails, vv. ■*. (6) Fiery serpents, vv. ^-^*. (2) Fire and water, heat and cold (1615-29). (3) Light and darkness (17 i-lS'). (4) Death (186-26). (5) Passage of the Bed Sea (IQi-^i). And the whole ends with a kind of doxology (1922), THE BOOK OF WISDOM I. 1. Cherish righteousness, ye that judge the land, Think of the Lord in goodness. And in singleness of heart seek ye him. 2. For he is found of them that tempt him not. And is manifested unto them that disbelieve not in him. 1. I. Our view of this verse will depend much on the question of the persons to whom it is supposed to be addressed. If heathen kings and princes generally are referred to the sentiment is of the vaguest description ; but if, as we suppose, the passage is directed to Jewish apostates holding high office, the words acquire a distinct meaning. hiKawtrvvriv will contain at once a plea for a fairer treatment of their fellow-countrymen and a reminder of the ' righteousness ' of the Law which they have abandoned (Matt. 5 ^''). So aya66TT)s will mean 'kindliness' to compatriots and irrkoTrfs KapSias 'fairness,' 'with no reservations, with no attempt to face both ways or to serve two masters ' (Farrar), which is exactly the meaning in Eph. 6 ^ (addressed to servants), VTraKovere rots Kara trapKa Kvptois fiera (po^ov koL Tp6p.ov iv dTrXoTijTi TTjs KapSias vfimv ats tm Xptcrra. Cf. I Macc. 2 ^', ' Let us die e'v Tjj cmXoTTiTi rifimv,' as Straightforward worshippers of God. yrj will then mean not the world at large but ' the land ' in which the writer and his readers live. So Engelbreth, cited by Grimm and Gfrorer, Philo, ii. 206, who insists that the actual rulers of the land where the author lives must be addressed, if there is any force in the passage. The rendering of Kptvovrfs rfjv yrjv as 'explorers of the earth,' suggested by Zenner in Zeitschr. fur Kath. TheoL, xxii. 430, seems unjustifiable. For a criticism of it cf Cornely, p. 37, n. i. 2. Here again the meaning of ■n-sipd^eLv becomes clear if we assume it to be used of Jewish rulers. For them to forsake the God of their fathers was to tempt him indeed. In the second half of the verse we find a variant, supported by ffi*, and according to Feldmann S*", roij pi) Triarevova-iv avra. On the principle of ' the more difficult reading is the better' this should be accepted, and it does not want support. The accepted reading roi'y pfi dwiirTovcnv avTa introduces a verb (aTna-Teiv) which is rare in Hellenistic Greek ; and secondly the 85 86 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [1. 3. 4- 3. For crooked reasonings do separate from God, And his power being put to proof confuteth the fools. 4. For into a soul that deviseth evil wisdom will not enter, Nor abide in a body enslaved unto sin. case of the 'unbelievers' seems to agree better with what follows. But ania-Tc'w occurs in three other places (10^, 12^", 18'') in Wisdom. The Fathers quote the passage (cf. Deane's note) with the common reading ; and the second part of the verse, with this rendering, corresponds in the usual way to the first part. S^ and iL seem to have read simply rois- ma-rfvova-iv aira — a very suspicious reading and suggestive of forcible simplification. If we accept the variant we must render ' is displayed (in wrath) to them that believe not in him,' and we note that in the New Testament, when the word (fKpavi^fLv is used in the sense of 'appearing' at all (John 14^'-^^), it signifies a beneficent appearance. That of the risen saints (Matt. 27 *^) is doubtful. But little can be argued from ' Wisdom's ' specific use of Greek words (cf Introduction). Zenner (0^. ci/., p. 418) deserts the IL for the harder reading. 3. It is unnecessary to attach any far-fetched meaning to tr/coXioi Xoyi(r;ioi. The word ctkoXioj has precisely the same meaning as it has in Deut. 32 * (ffi) ; that of the apostatising temper. The reference is not to the Epicurean theories of the second chapter, but to the turnings and twistings by which the Jewish renegades had argued themselves out of their allegiance to the God of their Fathers. XoyuTjioi, moreover, in Hellenistic Greek has almost always a bad sense: ' chicanery ' or something like it. -ff.^. in 16'* R.V., renders it senseless ' imaginings ' ; in Prov. 6 '* we have ' imaginations,' and so in 2 Cor. 10 *. The idea of sober 'reasoning,' in the classical sense, has deserted the word altogether. It is marvellous to find that early commentators, following IL's 'probata virtus corripit insiplentes,' referred the expression Sivafiis SoKi/iafofie'KT) to human excellence. Grimm gives Calmefs paraphrase : 'sola probi hominis praesentia assidua est improborum accusatio,' no doubt with reference to chap. 2. There is a slight difference of opinion among commentators as to whether SoKi/xafo/itVr; can mean 'asserting itself on trial,' or whether it can only signify 'being tried' (as &'^^ Arab.), but the point is not one which affects the interpreta- tion of the passage. Similarly the question whether Acyj^ci means ' confute ' or ' convict ' is unimportant. 4. ' Some have deduced from this passage that the author saw in the body the source of all moral evil' (Deane). Exactly the contrary is to be deduced. All bodies are not evil (8 ^, ' I came into a body undefiled '), and if all are not evil the theory of the inherent wicked- ness of the flesh, which even Grimm attributes to our author, fails at once. The idea is simply that of 2 Cor. 6 ", 'What communion hath 1. S-] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 87 5. For a holy spirit of discipline will flee from deceit. And hold aloof from witless reasonings, And where wickedness cometh on fast will be put to con- fusion. light with darkness ? ' or as Farrar well puts it, ' the dove cannot live in unclean places.' The point is of importance as bearing on the Eschatology of 'Wisdom.' A writer who believed the body to be altogether evil could not well believe in the resurrection of that body (cf Introd., § 3). Another question of interest raised by the text is the division of man's nature into body and soul simply. This corresponds to the simple Old Testament view, as reflected in 2 Mace. 7 ^", 'I give up both body and soul' ; 14'*, 'body and life' ; 15 ^°, 'in body and soul.' So our author in 9^^ and 16^'' makes no distinction between vois and yjfvxfi and ■jfvxrj and Trvei/xa. Philo, on the contrary, insists on the Platonic trichotomy of body, soul, and spirit, which is to a certain extent sanctioned by i Thess. 5 ''^, ' may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire at the coming of our Lord.' With respect to the language, Karaxpea dfiapnai is perhaps best expressed by Farrar's 'impawned to sin.' Corn, k Lapide explains ' oppignerato (corpore) et velut aere peccati obaerato et obstricto.' It is a vivid expression only paralleled in the New Testament by John 8 ^*, ' the bondservant of sin,' and Rom. 7 ", ' sold under sin.' Si^ has 'subjected to sins ' {dfiapriais is a variant found in the Fathers), and Margoliouth {0^. cit., p. 286) speaks of it as an ordinary Rabbinic expression for ' sinful,' which he says is the rendering of the Coptic version. KaKoTfx^os, ' devising evil,' is peculiarly appropriate if applied to the malicious feelings of the Jewish apostates towards their faithful fellow- countrymen. S- In spite of the use of irveC^a aycov (never, be it observed, in the nominative, and always without the article) in Matt, i '*'''', John 20 ^\ Acts 2 *, for the Holy Spirit, it seems better here to adopt the view of Grimm that no technical meaning is intended ; ' a holy spirit (so R.V.) having nothing in common with what is sinful and impure.' There is no personification of the Holy Spirit ; if any such is found in Wisdom it is in the ' Solomonic ' chapter 9 ". This passage cannot therefore be quoted as the first mention of the ' Holy Ghost.' ffi in Ps. 50 (s i) 1^ and Isaiah 63 '"■" has ro nvevp-a 7-0 aywv. Farrar blindly copies Grimm, who most unaccountably cites both passages as containing the words irvcSpa Ayiaxripris. Just as in the preceding verse we find a variant irmSeia for (To[as for TrmSflas. It is tempting to attach nmSeias to SoXov, and to render 'treacherous teaching ' such as the book of Koheleth afforded to the apostates (cf Introd., p. 23), but the versions and one Father (cf Deane a{i /oc.) are 88 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [1. 5- against this. S"" reads 'a holy spirit and discipline,' which Lagarde corrects to ' of discipline.' This Sk^ supports. The third part of the verse is almost inexplicable. A.V. renders 'will not abide' ; R.V. 'will be put to confusion' ; Vulg. 'corripietur a superveniente iniquitate.' S^ ' will be rebuked.' Reuss : ' il quitte la place.' Gfrorer : ' cannot live where iniquity rules.' All these renderings correspond to the first two members of the verse, but Siegfried, remarking that it is the function of Trvcvfia ayiov (which he takes to mean the Holy Spirit) to 'convince,' as in John 16* (fXf'ylet TOW KotTnov wepl ifiaprlas ktX) renders 'will be full of the spirit of reproof.' Bois, Essai Critique, p. 379, would even remove the line altogether and place it between v. ^ and v. ^, so as to read 'justice convicting will not pass him by (v. \ but he will be con- victed under the weight of his iniquity.' His grounds are that Ikiyxa is so often used in this chapter (vv. ^■^■^) in the sense of ' convict,' and could not well bear any other meaning here. But (l) the change would involve the tautology of kXiyyio' in two succeeding lines ; (2) no one can argue that Pseudo-Solomon will not use a word in one sense in one line and in another in the next : cf the case of eVio-Kon-i}. It is very possibly a case of ignorance of the precise force of the Greek word on the writer's part. At all events, if any of the ordinary renderings be accepted, it can hardly be the Holy Spirit that is referred to. Churton, however, with Cornely, supports this latter idea, quoting Gen. 6 ', ' my spirit shall not always strive with man,' so, he says, ' whilst Adam was upright the Holy Spirit was with him ; when he fell and dissembled with God the Spirit of discipline fled from his deceit. For the same reason the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul.' Brucker, Hist. Phil., ii. 694, argues that in these verses the ' anima mundi ' is meant ; a good example of the way in which Platonism used to be read into ' Wisdom.' Another explanation of all this is suggested by Cornely, which, if adopted, would affect the meaning of the first five verses. He would translate irupa^uv to trifle with religion ; to indulge in idle and superfluous speculations about God of the kind from which the son of Sirach dissuades his readers in Ecclus. 3^'"^''. Further, he would render /iij airia-Tiiv avTw, ' to have full confidence in him,' i.e. to surrender one's speculative judgment to one's faith ; in short, to adopt the maxim 'intelligo quia credo.' He quotes the words of Azariah in 2 Chron. 15 ^ as justifying this attitude of mind. If we adopt this explanation, a different sense will be given to ' crooked reasonings ' (v. '), the devising of evil (v. *), and ' witless reasonings ' (v. ^). But it is questionable if this interpretation can be made to agree with the theory which Cornely holds with most modern critics, that it is the Jews in high places who are being addressed. With their position the renderings given in the notes seem to agree tnuch better. 1. 6-] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 89 6. For the spirit of wisdom is kindly to man, And will not hold a blasphemer guiltless of his lips ; Because God is witness of his reins, And a sure inspector of his heart. And a hearer of his tongue. 6. The connecting particle 'for' has caused more discussion than it deserves (Gfrorer even translates it ' although ') ; for the connection is fairly clear. The spirit of wisdom is too kindly to man either to abide where wickedness is rampant and men are condemning them- selves, or to allow the apostate to blaspheme his God without penalty. Siegfried simply removes the line and puts it between v. '^ and v. '*, therein following Bois {Essai, 379). Zdckler takes the commonsense view : Wisdom loves man and therefore abhors blasphemy, which brings about man's ruin. The variant ia, adopted in the text, is of importance. It is supported by ffi'^ JL S^ Arabic, and (it is said) the Armenian. Its importance is that it avoids the hypostatisation of ' Wisdom,' which we believe to occur only in the Solomonic chapters 7-9. For the importance of the difference cf. Bois, Essai Criiiqiie, i-iii,^ who basfes an argument on the old reading which, with the variant, is hardly possible, for the old reading runs, ' Wisdom is a spirit kindly to man.' ISXaa-fpiiios in Hellenistic Greek means always a reviler of God, a sense it seems never to bear in the classics. vepS>v by Weber (/lid. T/teo/., 211), v/ho cites a Rabbinic tract in which it is stated that man has two kidneys ; one urging him to good, the other to evil, in support of which Ps. 15 (16)', en Se Kai emr vvkt6s inaihevaav jxe 01 i/ec^poi fiov, is quoted. The rendering of inia-Konoi is to be pressed in view of the import- ance of the term iina-Konr) afterwards used. 'Beholder' (A.V.) and 'overseer' (R.V.) are quite inadequate. The 'scrutator' of iL is much better, and has the support of Si^ also. There is no sense of ' benevolent protection ' about the word as used here. 7. The indefinite translation of Reuss, ' comme il embrasse toutes choses' is here deliberately adopted. It is absurd to expect from a writer who in the previous line has used olK.ovy.ivTi for xoo-fios an exact philosophical meaning of the Greek word a-vvexto. o'lKovfjievr] is never used by any Greek writer to signify anything but the 'hahitable earth.' Grimm's quotations from Luke 21 ^^, Acts II ^*, and Joseph., Anf., vm. xiii. 4, all bear this meaning. The nearest approach to the sense of 'universe' is found in Heb. 2^, oi yap ayyeXoLS vvera^ev rfjv olKovfifvrjv rrjv iJ.iK\ov(Tav. Bretschneider, who assumes a Hebrew original for ' Wisdom,' suggests that the Greek translator confused ^Ip, a voice, with ijia, or rather D?3, ' all.' Yet the word a-wdxov is pressed by those writers who will at any cost discover Platonism or Stoicism in 'Wisdom.' Bois, Essai Critique, i^i^i^ argues from it that the Holy Spirit and ao^ia are the same, and even Grimm appears to think that the 'Anima Mundi' is here alluded to. The quotations, ancient and modern, given by Farrar depend on a somewhat different idea — the 'holding together' of the world by an outside influence, which is a different thing from permea- tion. The latter must be sought, if anywhere, in the.preceding line, and if olKovfievt] have its natural sense, that line means simply ' the Spirit of God fills the dwelling-place of mankind.' It is impossible to discover any Pantheistic idea (which is what the ' Anima Mundi ' really implies) in either line. Deane's note is worth quoting: 'the writer speaks only of the Omniscience and Omnipresence of God, even as the Psalmist, Psalm 139 ('Whither shall I go from thy spirit,' etc.), and Zech. 4'" ('they run to and fro through the whole earth'). Cf. Eph. 1 22 ('the fulness of him that fiUeth all in all').' St. Augustine says that there is no necessity to refer this passage to the spirit that is supposed by some to animate the world ' invisibilem scilicet creat- uram cuncta visibilia universali quadam conspiratione vegetantem atque continentem ; sed neque hie video quid impediat intelligere Spiritum Sanctum, cum ipse Deus dicat apud Prophetam, Caelum et 1. 8.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 91 8. Therefore shall no man that speaketh naughty things escape, Nor shall convicting justice pass him by. terram ego impleo,' Jer. 23 ^*. But nearly all commentators seem to confound this idea of 'holding together' with that of permeation. Now the former idea is appropriate to God ; the latter to the 'Holy Spirit' however designated, and the reading of S*", 'he that holdeth together the whole,' followed by the Arabic, keeps this plainly in the foreground (of. Margoliouth, I.e., 286). With regard to the last line, there can be no better explanation than that quoted by Grimm from Nannius (whose book is not so scarce as he supposed) : ' Ut vehiculo aeris omnes voces ad aures perferuntur, ita nihil did potest quin vehiculo spiritus sancti ad eum perferatur qui continet omnia at voces omnes intelligit. Ex eo enim quod dicit continet., id videtur significare quasi omnes voces intra ambitum complexumque Dei fiant, non foris, quare ilium latere nihil potest ne vel tenuissimum murmur.' 8. The writer seems to have found the word irapoSeveiv in Theocritus (as he also found rfiKeo-Bai) and to have been pleased with it. He uses it five times (here and in 2', 5''', 6^^, 10^), and only once in its natural intransitive sense as we find it in Theocr., xxiii. 47 (' Traveller, pass not by'), and indeed in ffi of Ezek. 36^', 'in the sight of all that passed by.' The Vulg. translates ' praeteriet,' an impossible form (on the analogy of ' ambire,') but found also in H of Ecclus. 1 1 ^"j etc. Margoliouth, in £xpos., 1900, i. 32, suggests that Theocritus himself was a Jew. The passages quoted by the commentators (Ecclus. 1 1 ™ jrapeXeia-e- rai, 39 -^ napa^rjcrovTm, Jer. 5 ^^ oix vTrepPfjcreTm avro) do not illustrate or explain the matter. We have here a Greek word which the writer of 'Wisdom' simply did not understand. It means 'to pass along' ; he thought it meant ' to pass over,' as it does in much later authors. To argue from the Greek of such a writer is hopeless. It is very probable that he wrote oiSe firjv (which Swete retains) for oitbk ptj at the beginning of line 2, and followed it by a subjunctive. This is certainly the more difficult reading. But a precisely similar variation is found in the IB of Job 28 ". S'' Arab, give no help ; the first has ' he (the blasphemer) shall not escape the judgment of rebuke,' the latter, which is a superior version, reads ' detecting punishment shall not be removed from them.' Both translators probably had our present Greek text before them. We have here something very like a personification of SUr/. It seems natural enough to us, and we do not find in it any indication of a separate entity called ' Justice,' any more than (elsewhere) of 'Wisdom' : cf. II 2°, and 'pursued by Justice,' Acts 28*. A striking use of this word for 'vengeance' occurs in 4 Mace. 4 '^ c| av6pan'LvTis fVi/3ovX^s (cm prj Betas SIktjs avjiprjnBai tov 'AncyKaviov. That Philo {in Place, § 18) personifies Justice will surprise no one. 92 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [1. 9- lo- 9. For of the plots of the unrighteous man shall inquisition be made, And the echo of his words shall come unto the Loid For a conviction of his lawless deeds : 10. For the ear of jealousy overheareth all, And the muttering of murmurings is not hidden. 9. For ' of the plots ' the Greek is iv 6io/3ovXi'otf atre^ovs ; a peculiar use of iv, but not unclassical : cf Thuc. i. JJ, iv xois vofiois tvouIv ras Kpiacis, with a slightly different meaning : iv e'^oi Bpaa-it, Soph. AJ., 13 1 5, is perhaps nearer. We have here a difference of rendering which for once is absolutely unimportant as regards the force of the doctrine inculcated. The A.V. translates, 'inquisition shall be made into the counsels of the ungodly' ; and the Syriac interpreter took the words in the same sense. The R.V., taking aa-ffiovs with i^iraoLs, renders rather awkwardly, 'in ike inidst of his counsels the ungodly shall be searched out,' and has the support of the Arabic, 'examination shall be made of the wicked as concerning his designs.' The slight verbal difference is of no account ; the force of the passage, if addressed, as we suppose, to apostate Jewish princes, is unmistakable. The whole verse is indeed a fervid denunciation of the sin of such renegades, and a warning as to the penalty which awaits them. AtafioiXiov and Sio^ovXia, which are hardly classical, are favourite words with fflr, who no doubt connected them with Si(i/3oXor. They occur in Ps. 5'°, 9^3 (^ lo^); Hos. 4^, s\ 7 ^% 11^ ; Ezek. 11 5, the Hebrew varying. ' Echo ' (Reuss) is of course no literal translation ; but it seems to express the sense of the Greek a/coij. Churton renders 'the sound of his words,' and quotes (on 5 ') the forcible utterances of Mai. 3 ''■^°. There is a book of remembrance before the Lord, and the ' words that have been stout against him ' are all recorded. 10. The 'ear of jealousy' is 'the common Hebrew adjectival genitive' (Farrar), and does not need much illustration. The idea is originally anthropomorphic, and in certain cases (as in Joel 2 ", ' Then was the Lord jealous for his land and had pity upon his people' ; Ezek. 39^'', 'Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel ; and I will be jealous for my holy name ') expresses the zeal of Yahwe for his chosen flock. But in other passages a personal demand for respect is enunciated, e.g: Exod. 20^, 6f6s fijXfflTijf, and 30" (R. V.), 'For thou shalt worship no other god ; for the Lord whose name is Jealous is a jealous God.' The general sense of the passage, leaving out of account the anthro- pomorphic view, cannot be better expressed than by Churton : ' Even man's jealousy makes him listen to everything and watch for every word that is whispered against him ; much more should the dread of I. II.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 93 II. Beware ye therefore of unprofitable murmuring, And refrain from idle slander of the tongue ; For there is no word so secret that shall go for nought, And the mouth that lieth it slayeth the soul. Him, who is the witness of all our actions, restrain us from vain mur- muring, detraction, and other sins of the tongue.' This is no doubt the large application of the text ; but in all probability it is directed primarily to the Jewish apostates, whose ' mutterings ' (Reuss, 'fussent- ils proferes k voix basses ') will not escape the ear of God. yoyyv(r/ioy is not a classical word, but it is effective, and is found in Exod. 16*, Numb. 17^''°, used of the 'murmuring' of the Israelites against Moses. Siegfried gives a different rendering : ' muttering of murmurings ' is for him a kind of superlative like the ' Holy of Holies.' This is highly improbable : most likely the author had picked up the Greek word dpoiis and thought it would sound well with out (Grimm). Bois, 228, has an excellent note on the anthropomorphisms and anthropopathies of ' Wisdom.' They are very rare, he points out, and all in the latter chapters : 10 *', ' Thy hand that fought for them ' ; 11'', 'Thine all powerful hand'; 16'^, 'Thy hand it is not possible to escape'; ig"*, 'These that were carried with thy hand.' He even attributes all such expressions to a desire to illustrate the feelings of Solomonic times. 1 1. These words, if really addressed to the kings and princes of the earth, sound rather absurd. If, however, they are intended for the ears of a Tiberius Alexander and his likes, they are reasonable enough. Toyyucr/iof and KoraXaXia must then mean their cavillings against the God of their fathers and his laws. ' Slayeth the soul ' has been unduly pressed by those commentators who are determined to find in this book the doctrine of the absolute annihilation of the wicked as it is enunciated, for example, in Enoch 22 ^\ ' Their spirits will not be punished on the Judgment Day, but they will not even be raised up from hence.' It is needless to say that such a doctrine is totally at variance with what is taught in Wisdom 4 '". This rather corresponds with what is stated in Enoch 100-103. (It is unnecessary, perhaps, to say that the so-called 'Book' of Enoch is really a collection of tractates.) What we find there is no doctrine of annihilation but of a miserable continued existence. ' Their souls will be killed, scream, and lament in an immense and desolate place, and burn in a flame where no earth is.' This is alfnost exactly the idea of Wisdom as expressed in 4 '", ' They shall be_ in anguish ' ; and they shall moreover know the recompense of the righteous, 5 '■'. However unphilosophical and vague in his language the writer of Wisdom may be, he certainly does not teach the annihilation of the wicked. The expression avaipel ^vxr)" means no more than it does in a famous sermon of Mr. Spurgeon on 'Soul-murder,' which 94 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [1. 21. 1 2. Seek not after death by your erring way of life, Neither draw destruction unto you by the works of your hands. certainly does not imply 'annihilation.' Siegfried's translation of dvaipel is loose, but probably not looser than the Greek : ' Verlogener Mund rafft die Seele dahin.' KaToXaXia is not a classical word, but occurs in 2 Cor. 122°, I Pet. 2 \ both times in the sense of 'backbiting' (or so it appears from the context). Deane, however, would render it here 'blasphemy,' which certainly agrees with the first part of the verse. Grimm (p. 59) takes the opportunity to suni up the eschatology of Wisdom, such as it is ; and like every other critic who has attempted it, is involved in contradictions. He quotes, for example, 4 '^ and this verse i " as proving that ' the wicked will be utterly destroyed by God and their souls perish.' But in commenting on 4 ^'■' (p. 109) he admits the precise contrary : ' that annihilation of the soul is not meant is plain from the following etrovrai ej/ oSivr].' That this can refer to an intermediate state he himself denies (p. 60), and we are left face to face with an absolute contradiction, which is not improved by the statement that 'getodtet werden' may mean merely 'torments beyond the grave,' for which Tatian c. 13 is cited as saying that OdvaTos means the eternal punishment to be assigned to the wicked at the Judgment. Reuss probably expresses the writer's meaning when he says ' immortality is reserved for the just ; the life reserved for the wicked after their death does not deserve the name.' This was certainly the Rabbinic view (Weber, /uil Tfieol., 338) ; the souls of the good go straight to God ; those of the wicked wander to and fro, chased by angels from one end of the world to the other ; but they are not annihilated, they still exist. With regard to the language, Ktvov oh nopeia-eTm (with which may be compared Isa. 55 ", 'So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth ; it shall not return unto me void') seems to be an early instance of an idiom which has become common in European languages — 'to turn out bad' or the like. In Italian the verb 'to come ' has actually become a periphrasis for the passive : 'to be loved' may be expressed by 'to come loved.' The same idiom is possibly to be found in 4 ^'', eXeicrovTai. Grimm takes it somewhat differently, ' shall proceed out ' (of the mouth), on the analogy of the Hebrew i^'i^, and quotes from the New Testament, Matt. 4*, 15 ", etc., where, however, ck toO crrd^aros is used. Of the passages from the Old Testament which he cites, only one (in ffic) contains c KTTopeiea-Bai (Deut. 8^). 12. 'Ev is used in a strictly classical sense, of the instrument ; cf, Lidd. and Sc. s.v. A. ill. Margoliouth, o^. cit, 267, discovers in TrXdyj 1. 12.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 95 a'mistranslation of a Hebrew word meaning 'folly,' and would render ' acquire not death by the folly of your mind.' Tnis seems at least un- necessary. ' Do not court the death of your soul by your epicurean vagaries ' is the general meaning. The writer probably had in mind Prov. 8^^, where Wisdom says oi fwrovvTh fie dyawaxri, davarov, and very possibly attached no exact meaning to ' death.' Cf Ezek. 33 '\ IVa ri aTrodvTjtrKere olkos ^IcrparjXj' If it has any distinct force, however, it is that of the loss of the blessed immortality of the righteous. Drummond, Philo, i. 210, says of v. ^^, ' That the reference is to spiritual death, that is, the loss of the soul's true and blessed life, may be inferred with some probability from the words which immediately precede the statement that God did not make death.' ' A lying mouth,' it is said, ' kills the soul,' an expres- sion which is itself of doubtful import ; but its meaning is determined by the succeeding exhortation not to strive after death, because God is not pleased with the destruction of the living, — as though death were so opposed to the divine purpose that it could be obtained only through a criminal zeal. Such language could not be used of our physical dissolution in a world where every plant withers and every animal restores his body to the dust. All doubt is removed by the added statement that ' righteousness is immortal,' for the antithesis will hold good only in the spiritual realm — the righteous, as our author confesses, dying to this world as surely and as easily as the wicked.' Dr. Drummond further refers to 'Wisdom's' denial of the reality of death (ch. 3) in the case of the righteous. It will be seen that he is very far from attributing to ' Wisdom ' the doctrine which Grimm insists upon : that of the annihilation of the wicked. Indeed it involves that commentator in hopeless confusion. The wicked will die and yet will continue to exist in torment. The difficulties are well set forth by Bois as quoted in Add. Note B. One way out of them was to suppose that Pseudo-Solomon alluded to a temporary condition in which the souls of the godless remained till on the day of judgment they were totally destroyed. Cf. Grimm as quoted above. Bois' suggestion of a prophetic confusion of ideas will hardly stand. Pseudo-Solomon is not a prophet. With the second line we may compare Isa. 5 '*, ' Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity and sin as it were with a cart rope.' The word etria-Traa-Bai is there used, and also in Judith 12 '''('if we draw her not unto us'), where the allusion is to sexual relations. This is just possible here, and more than possible in cTdKrjcTav, verse 16. It should be noted with regard to the strong word fi;Xo£!Te, 'be zealous for death,' that it is the term used (Joseph., 3. /., 11. viii. 7) of the candidates (oi fi/XoCvrer) for admission into the sect of the Essenes. 96 THE BOOK OF WISDO^f [1. i.^ 14- 13. For God made not death, Nor hath he pleasure in the destruction of them that live ; 14. For he created all things for to endure, And the generative powers of the world are full of health, And there is not in them the poison of destruction. Nor is the kingdom of death upon earth. 13. The whole idea is ver\- mucli that of James i '-"^ 'Let no man sa\ when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for God is untried in evil, and he himself tempteth no man. But each man is tempted when he is drawn away b\' his own lust, and enticed,' etc., /.r. God is not the author of sin i^and death^. Cf. also Ezek. 33 '', ' I have no pleasure in the deadi of the wicked, but that the ^\-icked turn from his way and live : turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways ; for «hy will ye die, O house of Israel ? ' Cf. also 18 •■-, 2 Peter 3 ". A highly illustratix e passage is quoted by Deane from the CofisL AJ>ost., vii. i, (^v./ j ' they perished,' and this meaning appears in 3 Mace. 6^. But if they perished, how could they be said to make a covenant with death ? S*" ' they melted.' ^vvdrjKt] is somewhat fancifully interpreted by Bois as referring to ' initiation ' into the hated mysteries. In the well-known passage, Isa. 28 1^, the 'covenant with hell' is used in an entirely different sense, viz. a covenant to escape from hell. Yet a third sense is found in Ecclus. 14 '2, where dtaSrjKrj aSov (probably) means 'the law of the lower world,' according to which men die at a certain time. If the book is mainly addressed, as we believe, to Jewish apostates, the allusion is pointed, drawing a contrast between Israel's holy covenant with God and their unholy compact with evil. In spite of the personal terms here applied to ' death,' Grimm, p. 63, will not hear of the conception of him as a 'Prince of Death,' either here or elsewhere ; cf , however, Porter as above quoted. 100 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [2. I. 2. 2. I. For they said in themselves, reasoning not aright, Brief and sorrowful is our life, Yea in the end of a man is no cure, And none was ever known that returned from Hades, 2. For at random were we begotten, And hereafter we shall be as though we had not been ; For smoke is the breath in our nostrils, And our reason but a spark in the beating of our heart, 2. I. With the whole passage Deane compares i Cor. 15 ^^ (g, direct quotation from Isa. 22'^, 'Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die.' Cf. 56 ^\ ' We will fill ourselves with strong drink ; and to-morrow shall be as this day, etc.'). The allusions to Ecclesiastes are clear and indubitable. Grimm would take ev eavrois ' with one another,' which is a classical use, but incorrect here, for the allusion is plainly to Eccl. 2 1, I said in 7/zy heart. Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth ; therefore enjoy pleasure. So H ' apud se cogitantes,' apparently taking Iv iavroU with Xoyi(rcifL€voL ' In the end of a man there is no cure : ' the words are capable of two entirely different senses, (a) ' In a man's end there is no cure for his earthly troubles,' i.e. there is no immortality as a recompense for this world's evils : and (i) ' there is no remedy or escape from the end of a man.' The first would undoubtedly have been adopted by all, as it is by Grimm, had it not been for the passage, Eccles. 8 \ ' there is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit - neither hath he power over the day of death.' The resemblance of this passage to various texts of Wisdom, and especially to 16'*, 'the spirit that is gone forth he turneth not again,' induced the commen- tators to force the Greek to bear this second meaning. 3L's curious rendering ' non est refrigerium in fine hominis ' favours the first. Cf Pseud. -Ambros. Semi. xix. (quoted by Deane), 'Lazarus apud inferos in sinu Abrahae refrigerium consecutus.' On the rendering of these words depends also in part that of those which follow. If the close connection between Eccles. 8 and Wisd. 16'' is maintained, then to correspond to that passage ('neither giveth release to the soul that Hades hath received') we must trans- late with Grimm ' a redeemer from the lower world has not yet been discovered.' But the other rendering is more in accordance with the common use of avaKviiv (cf Luke 12^°, i Esdr. 3', Tobit 2°), is supported by the versions, and gives an excellent meaning, ' None of the dead have returned to tell of a life beyond the grave : therefore let us enjoy the present life' (Churton). 'Wisdom' itself gives us no help. In 16 ■* avdkviiv certainly means to release, but tire author is capable of using it in an entirely different sense here. 2. U eyevTiSriiJ.ei' (Swete) be read, the R.V. 'we were born' may stand,; 2. 2.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM loi but if with some of the best MSS. we read eyewrjdqiiev we must translate ' were begotten,' which is physically more correct. We may illustrate this from the Germin satirical poet Biisch : ' Und man zeuget viele Kinder, Ohne Sorg' zu tragen bei ; Und die Kinder werden Sunder Wenn 's den Eltern einerlei.' auroT^fSi'ias (A.V. 'at all adventure') is wrongly translated by IL 'ex nihilo,' S"" 'unexpectedly.' The reference to Eccles. 3'' 'that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts,' would be much clearer if we could there translate (with Hitzig) ' a mere chance are all men,' a rendering adopted by R.V. marg., and clearly intended by the Massoretic vocalisation (R.V. text involves a tacit emendation mpD status constructivus for mpD). The Epicurean philosophy as set forth by Lactant, Imtt., 11. i. 2 (quoted by Grimm), implied that men 'supervacuos et frustra omnino natos (esse) quae opinio plerosque ad vitia compellit.' Grimm truly remarks that belief in a higher destiny of man is bound up with belief in the immortality of the soul ; and it is for this (and not merely to illustrate the word auro(r;(eSio>r) that he cites Cic, Tusc, i. 49. ' Non temere nee fortuito sati et creati sumus, sed profecto fuit vis quaedam quae consuleret generi humano ; nee id gigneret aut aleret, quod quum exantlavisset omnes labores, turn incideret in mortis malum serapiternum.' What follows is, as Reuss says, ' a well formulated expression of materialism ; breath does not prove the existence of a soul ; it is pro- duced by the play of the organs.' For iv pia-ii/, cf Gen. 2 ', 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.' Job 27 \ ' the spirit of God is in my nostrils.' .\(lyor (A.V. follows the Complut in reading oXi'y.it) is certainly 'reason' and not 'speech.' As Siegfried remarks, the ancients had no idea of the functions of the brjiin, and conceived of thought as a fiery matter. This idea does not seem to be confined to the school of Heraclitus, (Pfleiderer, Heraklit, 313), but to have been common to Stoics and Epicureans. Isidor. Pelus., Epp., iv. 146, is cited as quoting 01 dire/Seif a-Kiv6qi>a voixla-avrei clvai rqv ^vxqv kt\ with part of verse 3. The idea conveyed in Kivqa-ei seems to be that as two bodies rubbed together produced heat, so perpetual motion in the heart produced sparks which within meant ' thought,' without, in the form of breath, emitted vapour (nvofj). Churton seems to take Xayos as meaning 'speech' : 'they supposed. that their speeches would pass away with the sounds which they uttered, and knew not of the reckoning for every idle word.' For oi)( iirap^avrcs, cf. Obad. 16. ea-ovrat Ka8a>s ovx v7rdp)(0VT€S. Cic, Tuse. Disp., i. 9, illustrates our passage as regards the heart. ' Aliis cor ipsum animus videtur, ex quo excordes, recordes, concor- 102 THE BOOK OF WISDOM T2. 3- 3. Which being quenched, the body shall turn into ashes, And the spirit be dispersed as empty air ; desque vocantur.' And there is a curiously corresponding verse in Tennyson ('Vision of Sin') : — ' Every heart, when sifted well, Is a clot of warmer dust. Mixed with cunning sparks of hell.' For the general argument against the Epicureans, cf. Enoch 102 ^-i", 103 ^•'^, quoted in full in Appendix B. 3. R.V. has 'thin air,' for which there is not the slightest justification : IL (and A. V.) ' mollis aer.' Churton's paraphrase deserves quotation (noting that he seems to take Xoyor as 'speech') : 'when we die, it will be as when a fire is extinguished and cold ashes alone remain ; and our breath, together with the words which we have uttered, will be like the smoke of the fire, dispersed and mingled with the soft air.' There would appear to be more intended in the second line than the ordinary Biblical and classical comparison of life to a vapour or the like, nvevixa to these materialists might well denote the life itself. Just as the ancient Hebrews, recognising that when the blood was gone the life was gone, identified blood and life, so it was possible to say that when the breath was gone the life was gone ; therefore the breath was the life. (For the ancient Hebrew psychology in this matter cf. Porter in Additional Note A.) It is possible that this materialistic idea is found in Eccles. 3 '", ' that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts. ... as the one dieth, so dieth the other ; yea, ikey have all one breath^ and v. 2", ' All go unto one place ; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.' A clear distinction must be drawn between the Biblical and classical parallels to this and the following verses. The former are merely metaphors : man's life is like a breath, a vapour : the latter are generally frankly materialistic : man's life is a breath. Of the former we may note Ps. 144'' (f§) 'man is like to a breath'; Job 7 ', ' Remember that my life is wind.' Compare with these Hom. //., xxiii. 10, ■^vxi] . . . Tjvre Kawvos ax-sTO. Plato, Phaedo, "joa, ' Men fear lest the soul on the day of death (vdvs arraWarTofievr) tov (TOJ/xaroy Kot iK^alvovira cotTTrep nvcvfia 7J kottvos Biaa-Kebao'de'ia'a o'l^^TaL kt\. Lucret., iii. 233, 'Tenuis enim quaedam moribundos deserit aura mista vapore ' ; iii. 456, ' Ergo dissolvi quoque convenit omnem animal naturam, ceu fumus in altas aeris auras.' Seneca, Troades, 394, 'Ut calidis fumus ab ignibus vanescit ... sic hie quo regimur spiritus effluet.' Soph., EL, 11 58 (Saifiav) Ss ^ 'our dwelling'). ^I'oj ^)|l5>v is perhaps a reminiscence of vv. *'''. Kaipor will not mean our fixed span of life, as /3ior does in Job 14 ^ : the wicked would admit no such arrangement of Providence. It must be taken in the ordinary Hellenistic sense of 'time' generally. avanohitrfibs is not easy to interpret. It means rather ' repetition ' than 'returning' (the commonly accepted meaning), but occurs neither in ffi nor New Testament. 31 ' non est reversio finis nostri ' is ambiguous, and S^ 'there is no remedy I'^ n . rn l in our de- parture,' which is copied from v. '. The solution seems to lie in the Arabic ^ jjsj which plainly read lfuro8i(r;idr, 'hindering.' With this the exact Armenian (according to Margoliouth, op. cit., 285) also agrees, and this would seem to settle the point. ' There is no preventing death' — possibly the meaning of v. ^. If aj/an-oSicr/ior be retained, it might mean either 'there is no returning of our end' (a man can only die once, Heb. 9 ^'), or ' There is no return from death,' A. V. practically. But if drao-rpe'i^fi means also ' returns,' this is mere tautology. In any case it would seem that there is almost a repetition of v. ' in other words. KaT€a-fi has the common meaning ' to reverse ' (cf examples from Homer to Xenophon in Liddell and Scott), it seems appropriate here. This throws some light on the possible meaning of avaXv^iv in 2 1 ('redeem'). 6. 'The good things that are' may denote either those ready to hand (A.V. 'are present') or 'that really exist,' are not clouds or shadows or imaginary delights like those of virtue, but tangible sources of enjoyment. The polemic against Koheleth is here marked. Cf Eccles. 2 ^■t 2. 7-] THE BOOK OF WISDOM loj 7. Let us be filled with costly wine and perfumes, And let not the flower of the spring pass us by ; ' There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink and make his soul enjoy good in his labour ' (the same in 3 '^, with the later addition that ' this is the gift of God ; ' 9 ' is similarly qualified). 11°,' Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth ; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes,' followed by the famous interpolation, 'but know thou,' etc. For KTio-et, 'creation,' nrrja-ei, 'riches,' is a well-supported reading. To 'use the world' in this sense is exactly the opposite of i Cor. 7 '', ' use the world as not abusing it.' Classical quotations exhorting to immediate enjoyment are plentiful (see Grimm's and Farrar's notes). One striking one is from Petronius, Satyr. 34, where the guests exclaim, as the ivory skeleton is carried round at Trimalchio's banquet, ' Sic erimus cuncti postquam nos auferet orcus. Ergo vivamus, dum licet esse bene.' With this compare the Egyptian hymn quoted in Appendix A. j/coTjjrt presents a serious difficulty (vtoTi/ror is also read and might mean 'as in the time of youth'). That the difficulty was plain to the translators is clear from the variety of versions. 11 'tanquam in juventute.' Sk^ 'in our youth;' Arab, 'as long as youth lasts.' Grimm once suggested 'eagerly as is fitting for youth'; but now would read iv veorrjTi, and Siegfried, noting that the writer probably had Eccl. 1 1 ° ^nnp];3 ' in thy youth ' in his mind, approves. Other suggestions are ' as in the days when we were young,' and ' let us use the world as we do, or did, our youth.' Bretschn. thinks there is a confusion between 3 ' in ' and 3 ' as,' which would agree well with Pfleiderer's suggestion that vedrr;? is a slang word for ' a girl ' (some- thing like the German 'junges Blut'), and that the meaning is, 'let us use God's creation as we would a harlot.' This idea derives some support from the use of xprjo-Oai in Ecclus. 26 '". Cf Liddell and Scott, S.V., xpato, C. III. 2. Cornely would translate 'as if we were still in our youth,' which would confine the phrase to the case of aged sinners. Gregg's suggestion is ingenious : he would read Krla-ias for KTiVei a>s, and translate ' let us use the youth of creation ' ; but there is no support for such a conjecture. 7. There seems no occasion to suppose a double use of the verb as does Farrar ; ' let us fill ourselves with costly wines and sate ourselves with unguents.' It is probable that Pseudo-Solomon was, as usual, writing loosely, but passages are not wanting which indicate that the 'perfumed brandy' of the luxurious modern Indian had its prototype in classical times. Cornelius k Lapide translated olvov kw. jxypov 'vinum unguentosum,' and we find in Aelian, Var. Hist.^ xii. 31 io6 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [2. 8. 8. Be we crowned with rosebuds ere they fade away, And let there be no meadow uncoursed by our debauch. (quoted by Grimm), iJ-vpa olvov fuyvivres ovTa>s 'inivov. A most re- markable verbal correspondence occurs in Anacreon xiii. 9-13, eya> 6e Tov Avalov (cai tov fiipov Kopfirdfis, and again in xv. 5-8, e'^oi /ic'X« fiipoun KaraPpex^cv VTrrjvrjv, ifjioX /liXet poSoiai KaTa(Tre(j)eiv KapTjva. It is, of course, possible that the 'ointments' were those applied to the body — a custom common to Jews and Greeks, cf. Amos 6", 'that drink wine in bowls and anoint themselves with the chief ointments'; Luke 7^", 'my Aead with, oil thou didst not anoint'; Ps. 23 5 and 45 '. Pseudo-Heraclitus in Epistle vii. laments over ' the waste of good olive oil in perfumes ' or ointments. The question is really unimportant. For 'flower of the spring' the common text reads avBos aipot, and Swete retains it. The versions most certainly had this reading. S"" translates 'leaves of air,' and the Arabic 'smell of flower' or 'flowers.' But 3L most likely had the original reading as ffi*^ has preserved it; afflos iapos, 'the flower of spring.' No transcriber would have altered aipos into %apos ; many would be puzzled by iapos and write the more familiar aipo^. % renders the phrase 'flos temporis,' and from other passages (James 5 ' and Isa. 28 * quoted by Deane) it would seem that this or a similar periphrasis meant ' early.' There are various attempts to utilise akpos, e.g. Arnald, 'Let no fragrant breath of air arising from the wine or the ointments pass by or escape us.' Churton, ' The flower that scents the air.' But the most ingenious conjecture is that of Bois {Essai, 381). He discovered in Aristotle's Hisf. Ajiim. avdos as the name of a bird — 'probably the yellow wagtail ' (Liddell and Scott), and reading acopos for dcpos translates the 'early lark,' explaining that transcribers, confounded by the apparently neuter noun coupled with a masculine adjective, altered aaipos into dipos. Siegfried, however, points out that acopos always means 'untimely,' 'unripe.' Nor would the introduction of the lark among all these garlands and perfumes be probable. An even stranger idea is that of Calmet, quoted by Cornely. He rendered avBos aepos, 'flower of life.' But dfjp with the meaning of 'life' never occurs in classical or Hellenistic Greek. 8. For the first part of the verse there are parallels without number. The best known, perhaps, is Herrick's Gather ye rosebuds while ye may. Old Time is still a-flying ; And this same flower that smiles today. Tomorrow may be dying. 2. 8.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 107 Horace, Od. i. xxxvi. 15 and 11. iii. 13, and Anacreon are quoted by Farrar. The latter combines roses and perfumes, as here. Comely quotes in addition the lines, most apposite to this entire passage, of Lucr., Rer. Nat., iii. 910 : Hoc etiam faciunt, ubi discubuere tenentque Pocula saepe homines et inumbrant ora coronis. Ex animo ut dicant : Brevis hie est fructus homullis ; lam fuerit neque post unquam revocare licebit. The latter part of the verse is supplied from the Latin version : ' nullum pratuin sit quod non pertranseat luxuria nostra.' This addition stands in a different category from that already noticed in i 1*, and is almost certainly genuine. It must have fallen out (probably owing to the fact that the line began with firjSeis Xei'/imi' and the next with liflSiis rifiav) at an early date, for none of the versions recognise it ; but (i) it restores the balance of periods so carefully maintained in the rest of the paragraph. (2) It makes up one, at least, of the two a-rixoi which are presumed to have fallen out. Nicephorus (Deane, Proleg., 28) reckoned 1 100 tTrixo^ in ' Wisdom,' and at present there are but 1098. (3) An ancient glossary attached to Cod. Coislini- anus, cccxciv. gives the word \eifj.a>v as occurring in 'Wisdom.' It is nowhere to be found if not here. Siegfried objects that the form is too prosaic for Pseudo-Solomon ; but it is impossible to say what the original verse was. Gregg's remark is acute : ' it does not seem to have been noticed that Vulg. is simply a rendering of the first line of verse " with Xftnav substituted for ij/^Si/ [i.e. /i?;8cis "Kdfiav ajioipos fo-rm Tris rifierfpas ayc/) and also that irais in classical Greek does mean ' servant ' ; but surely the meaning is here fixed by v. '^*, ' he vaunteth that God is his father,' and v. ''", ' if the righteous man is God's son (vioj Btov) he will uphold him.' That the two expressions are used interchangeably in g4-7^ 12 '^"2" may be doubted, though il S^ translate Trmr 'servant,' in rather arbitrary fashion, at times. It is probable, however, that in Acts 3 '^ voiis Seov means 'servant of God,' and it is true that elsewhere where the Sonship of Christ is stated, nais is not the word used, but the unambiguous vtot. If any passage in Wisdom refers to the doctrines of Christianity it is this. For actual coincidence of language cf Matt. 27 *^ and v. ^^, TreTToidev iiii rov deov, pv&dtrBat vvv el BeXei avTov, John 19^ o(^et\et anoQaveiv^ otl viov 6eov eavrov eTTolrjcrev. The early Fathers treated this as a prophecy, from the Epistle of Barnabas onward. Justin, Diat. cum Trypk., xvii., Euseb., P.E., xiii. 13, and Clem. Alex., Strom., V. 14 are cited. These two latter, however, seem to quote a variant : apa/iev d' rjp.S)v Tov SiKoiov. Among Latin Fathers (Ter- tullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Lactantius) Augustine is worth quoting {de Civ. Dei, xvii. 20). ' In uno (libro) qui appellatur sapientia Salo- monis, passio Christi apertissime prophetatur. Impii quippe inter- fectores ejus commemorantur dicentes Circumveniamus justum.' Another theory was that of interpolation by a Christian hand. _ But against this we may remark (with Farrar), first, that no Christian would have introduced the subject of the Passion of Christ without a reference to his Resurrection (?), and secondly, that Chrisfs per- secutors are not such as could be reproved for 'breaches of the law' (v. 1^), but of the strictest sect of the Pharisees. The features of the 112 THE BOOK OF WISDOM 12. 14. 14. He was to us for a reproach of our devices ; Grievous is he to us even to look upon. case as described are those which accompany (in the idea of the sufferers) every rehgious persecution, and here the description is coloured by reminiscences of Isa. 53. A Lapide saw in the ' shameful death ' of v. ™ a direct allusion to the cross, and in the word axpna-rot (v. ") an insulting play on the name XpiVros, which was indeed confounded with x/"?o"r<)r. Cf. Suet, Claudius, 25, ' Impulsore Chresto.' A similar play on words maybe found in l Pet. 2^, tl (jfia-aaBe on )(pria-T6s o Kvpws. The theory of a real Messianic prophecy or reference in these verses has been revived by Comely, and is defended by him with considerable force and argumentative power. Into his reasonings it is impossible to enter here. He starts, of course, from the assump- tion that ' Wisdom ' is canonical and inspired. But if this premise be denied, his arguments, verbally good as they are, fail to convince us that anything more than the ' poor just man ' of ordinary life is in question ; and the persecution of the poor by the rich is almost a commonplace of the prophets; cf Hab. i *, Zech. 7'°, Ezek. 18'^, Isa. 10'', Mai. 3 5, Jer. 22 ^ The words axpr](TTos and Sva-xpijcTos would be out of place if the reference were really to Christ, and this difficulty can only be over- come by translating them 'molestus,' a meaning which they would hardly bear, though it would no doubt accurately describe our Lord's relation to the Jewish rulers, llai? Kvpiov Comely takes as meaning 'servant,' and justifies this by its use in the second Isaiah. That there is any reference to the torments of the just man in Plato, Repub., 362 A, is unlikely, but this passage is worth quoting. If he boldly rebukes injustice, !> hiKaio^ ^ao-TiyoxreTOi, atTai, df8riv dvaixxLvSv^fvdrjcreTaL Koi yva>(T€rat on ovk eivat, diKatov dWa 8oKe7v Set edfKciv. 14. It is not necessary to suppose that the righteous actually rebuked the apostates. The mere sight of his exact piety would be sufficient reproach for them. iL is extraordinarily literal, 'factus est nobis in traductioncm cogitationum nostrarum.' This the older com- mentators (e.,^. Holcot), ignorant of the Greek, seem to have inter- preted 'conviction of our thoughts,' i.e. penetrating knowledge of our thoughts. This would correspond well to Matt, g*, 'Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?' and to the similar passage in Luke 6*. But Cornely, though this would suit admirably with his theory of Messianic meaning in the text, quotes the rendering only to reject it as impossible. The dislike of the world for the SUatos was extended also to the Christian. Cf John 3 ^", nas yap (f)av\a npdcriTaiv fua-ei to (^ms-. 15 i", on €K TiiV Korrp-fru ovK €(TT€y dXX' tyo) e^eXe^dprjv vp.ds iK Tov KoauoVj hta 2. i;. i6.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 113 15. For his life is not like to others, And his ways are peculiar. 16. For false coin were we reckoned by him, And he abstaineth from our wa3"S as from filthinesses ; He blesseth the end of the righteous, And vaunteth that God is his father. TOVTO fuaei v^s 6 Kotr^s. I Pet. 4^) ^^ *? ^evifovTot, ^rf avvrpe^ovrcov vfiaiv fir rfiv avrqi' rfis aa-ioTias ava)(vcriv. So also to the philosopher. Philo, Quod om. lib. prob-^ ^ 3i '^vTLO-devrjs dva^daraKTOv eiTrev €ivai tov dareiov' cos yap fj a(j)poa-vvq Kov(j}ov koX (pcpofievov^ ff <^p6vr](ris eprfpeia-fievov Koi okXivcs kcu ^apos e^ov acrdkevTov, Max. T\T., Diss. 29, o pjkv ovfviraTe tov biKaiov. In one passage Christ is distinctly called o Sixaios, Acts 7^^ drreKTiLvav tovs irpoKaray- yelXavTas nepl Tjjs iXivtreos tov hiKalov, 20. The dative dcrxrjiiovi davdrca is of course late Greek (the classical form could be either KaraSiKa^Eiv riva davdrov or KaraSiKaffiv Sdvarnv Tivos), but it is well supported. Grimm quotes Diod. Sic, i. Jj, xiii. loi. Aelian, V. H., xii. 49, and Matt. 20 '^. KaraKptvova-iv airov davdri). Cf. Winer 263 and Moulton's note. iL 'morte turpissima condemnemus eum' apparently took Oavdra as equivalent to the Latin ablative ' by death.' The second line is variously interpreted. A. V. ' By his own saying he shall be respected ' — a dark saying, of which the solution is probably to be found in IL, ' erit enim ei respectus ex sermonibus illius ' : the meaning being, as Deane says, 'with an ironical turn,' 'God is sure to respect him.' Churton's paraphrase, 'there shall be an inquiry into the truth of his words,' though rather loose, fairly represents Grimm's interpretation, ' There shall be an im(TKOTrfj in accordance with his words,' and R.V. ' He shall be visited according to his words.' Cf V. ^', iSco/xeK d oi \6yoi auroO dXrjSus. A slight variation gives 'as his words deserve,' with which we may compare Matt. 12 ^t, €K Tau Xoyoji/ (TOV biKaiwBr](Trj Kai sk tS>v \6ya>v trov K.aT8iKaa6T](r7j The general idea of all who thus translate seems to be that ' a severe examination ' on the ground of the man's own professions is intended : an examination by God Himself Cf 3I That the wicked would not be likely to talk of such a judgment would matter little to the author of Wisdom. For this severe judgment cf &^, ' there shall be an inquiry upon him from his talk.' Whether Grimm is quite justified in translating «_>airi\s 'adversus eum' may be questioned. Vatablus and Calmet (quoted by Grimm), ' explorabitur, damnabitur, punietur sumpta ex illius sermonibus occasione,' seem to refer the eVta-KOTTij to the action of the wicked, as in Matt. 26 ^. It is possible that the Syriac took this view also. Other renderings are loose, e.g: Luther : ' he will be known by his words.' Osorius : ' Let us decide 2. 21. 22.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 117 21. Thus reasoned they, and were led astray; For their mahce blinded them. 22. Yea, they know not the mysteries of God ; Neither hoped they for the reward of holiness. Nor recognised the prize of blameless souls. on his mental state (eVieiKijs or not) by the words which torment will extort.' But a very popular rendering is that of Siegfried and others (akin to that of A. v.). ' According to his talk, he will be protected.' Farrar goes so far as to say that eVio-kotdj ' can only refer to God's oversight and protection of His child,' and cites Luke 19 **, where ' visitation ' certainly has not this sense. Zenner translates 'if we hearken to Him, He cannot fail of protection.' Even another rendering is suggested by Cornely : ' We shall know from what he says at the hour of death' (lit. from our inspection of him then) 'whether his boasts are true.' 21. Cf 2\ Xoynrdfievoi. ov< opBSis. Why this verse should have been singled out by Gratz as one in which the hand of a Christian interpolator may be seen it is difficult to see. There is certainly a resemblance to John 9 '"'■*', Iva 01 /ii) ^XinovTis ^XfTraxnv koI 01 ^XeTTovres Tv(f)Xoi yfvcovTat. "HKOva'av ck rCJv ^apiaaiav ravra 01 /ler' avTov ovTcs, Kal eiirav avri^, Mr} kol rj^-eU Tv(fjXol ecrfiev j kt\. Luke 23 ^'', ' They know not what they do.' Cf Eph. 4 '*, ia-KOTwfievoL Tjj Siavoia ovns : but there is no particularly Christian sentiment or dogma involved. 'What is here said of the relations between the pious and the worldly-minded has always been true, and the similarity of the language used to that used by the Jews against Christ arises solely from a natural similarity of circumstances' (Bissell). xaKi'a is well represented by the German ' Bosheit' Grimm on i ^ quotes Theoph. Ant., ad Auiol., i. 2. ex^'^ vjroKex^^M''""'^ ''oi'? 6(pSa\fiovs TTjs ■\|/"ux^ff (70V vno rav dpaprrjfidTav Kai rav irpd^eav aov TWV TTOVTJpaV. 22. There seems no reason for taking pvarrjpia to mean the esoteric doctrine of immortality, as Gfrorer, Philo, ii. 234 (translating yepas loosely as 'future exaltation'), supposes. It is merely the mysterious dealing of God with the righteous upon earth — their troubles, to be succeeded by future happiness — that is referred to. To the orthodox Jew with his traditional ideas of the temporal reward of piety, such dealing must be particularly difficult to fathom. 1/ has ' sacramenta Dei,' but the meaning seems to be simply that indicated in 4'''. 'They shall see the wise man's end and not understand God's intentions about him.' The force of the word in the New Testament is generally plain, as in Rom. 16 ^5, Eph. i ^, and i Cor. 15 *\ but in Col. I ^^ its exact force is questionable. For jivaTrjpia diov,^'ths. ii8 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [2. 23, 23. Because God created man to be imperishable, And as an image of his own everlastingness created he him. common reading, Swete has fiva-TTjpia avTov, which can only mean ' the mysterious ways of the righteous man,' and certainly, if it be correct, would support the Messianic interpretation of the passage. Cornely naturally presses this point. 'Otrios and oo-ioTrjs are terms which occur continually in Wisdom ; the first in 4 '^ 6 1", 7% lo^'^, 18 1-"-^, the second in 5", g% 143". Grimm very well distinguishes between the meaning of this word, which denotes inward piety, and cia-f^ela, which rather expresses strict observance of ceremonial, and does not occur in Wisdom at all. This is the more remarkable, inasmuch as Pseudo-Solomon, with his tirades against apostate Jews, might be expected to lay great stress on this ciacfida. (Wellnigh all the martyrs of Maccabees die because they will not eat pork.) That he attaches such importance to being ouios, which in the Psalms always answers to the Hebrew T'On ('Chasidim,' ' Asidaeans '), might give some colour to the theory, widely supported, that he belonged himself to an ascetic sect — the mystics of later Hebrew times — Essenes or Therapeutae. 'EKptvav is quite well expressed by the A. V., ' discerned a reward for blameless souls.' Their marginal note is mysterious. ' Greek : preferred, or esteemed the reward' : Kpiva is 'cerno,' 'to distinguish,' and so in rnodern language to ' recognise.' It seems hardly necessary to supply eivm for yepas. Zenner's translation seems eccentric : ' They were without reverence for the nobility of pure souls.' 23. 'A(t>dapala is difficult to express in English, but the German ' Unverganglichkeit ' comes near to it. It certainly includes the notion of dlesi immortality, which ddavaa-ia also implies in certain passages of this book (3*, 8"-'', 15 5). atpdapa-ia is found in this sense in I Cor. 1 5 "-^o-^^, etc. There is possibly a distinction made between dipSapa-ia and adavaa-ta in the last quoted verse, 8ei yap t6 4>6apT6v TovTO cvbvcraa-dai a(j)6apcrlav Kal to Bvtjtov tovto evSva-aa-6ai dSavacriav ; and SO it may be that the first refers to eternal life beyond the grave, while the second denotes deliverance from that second death which seems to be meant in the next verse. H ' inextermina- bilem ' is a fair rendering of eV d6apcria. In 6 ^^ we have a somewhat different meaning of the word. Even retaining ISwTtjTos in line 2 with Swete and R. V., and translating .it ' proprietatis,' we have an argument for immortality. God created man in his own image and with his properties. Those must in- clude immortality. If, however, with A.V. we read d'iSi&rriTot, the argument becomes a direct statement. It was supposed that this reading was supported only by a few MSS. and various patristic 2. 24.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 119 24. But through the devil's envy came death into the world, And they which are of his party do experience it. quotations, e.g. Tatian (in Grimm), c. 7 (of the Logos), Aicava r^s adavaa-ias tov avBpairov ewotrjae, while Method., de Resurr., xi., and Athan., c. ApolL, i. 7, quote the two lines word for word with di'SioTi/T-of. It is now discovered that Si^ reads the same, which seems strong con- firmation. 11 and S>^ read d/ioioVijTos, probably from a reminiscence of Gen. I ^''. iroiTjcwfifv av6pa>iT0V kot flKova rjinripav Kal Ka6' opolaxxiv. A reading iVoVijtos is also mentioned. For the expression kot' fiKova or the idea implied, cf. also Gen. 5 ', i Cor. 1 1 ^, ci/tmi/ /cat 8d|a 6eov virapx'^'', Col. 3 '", kot' clicova tov KncravTOs airov. Cf. also Ecclus. 17 '"', where the idea is completely opposed to that of Wisdom, apparently denying that God ever intended man to be immortal. He ' created man of the earth and turned him back unto it again. He gave them days by nutnber and a set time . . . and made them according to his own image.' 24. It is to be noted, firstly, that the serpent (with the same curious reticence which ' Wisdom ' shows in the case of proper names) is not actually mentioned. Those who object to the doctrine of a personal devil argue hard to prove that 'Wisdom' treats the whole matter allegorically, like Philo, who held that the ' serpent ' is a periphrasis for sensual pleasure, termed Sia^oXor by reason of its seductive lies. The omission of the article with Sid^oXos might seem to lend some colour to this ; but it is so found in Acts 13 '", vlk Sia^oXov, as in i Pet. 5 8, d avrlSiKos vp^aiv Bia^oKos. Against this view is to be urged that ' the devil's ' envy is a categorical reference to a person, capable of passions ; and secondly, that such a theory assumes ' Wisdom's ' full acquaintance with the completed doctrines of the Philonian school, which he certainly did not possess ; and if he were acquainted with this abstract meaning assigned to Std^oXoj, he surely would not have used a word so capable of misconstruction. (Dahne, Alex. Relig. Philos., ii. 172, n. 100.) For the belief in a personal devil the attitude of the LXX. is of interest. They identified the gods of the heathen with 'demons.' Deut. 33 ", eSvaav Sai/ioviois (0^65*) "oi ov Bern ; Ps. 96*, navTes ol d€o\ twv iBvasv Saifiovia (DvvS) ', I06 ^', tdvirav roiis viovs airmv nal rat Bvyaripas avTotv T019 bai/ioviois (□''IB') ; Isa. 65 ", iroifia^ovres ra Saifiovta {ii ? Fortune) TpaneC<^v. Now it is argued that in the Philonian philo- sophy (Dahne, ii. 70) 8ai.p.6via are only ^00^ spirits ; therefore the LXX. must have meant good spirits. Grimm, p. 83 n., asks if the Q'<'\^]}'^, the satyrs of Isa. 13 ^', who are to dance among the ruins of Babylon, are to be reckoned good angels ? In Isa. 34 " even the word D^^S (? wild cats) is rendered by ffi Satjiovia. These are stronger instances than those in which D^lty or DvvN are used, for those terms involve no ascription of malignity. They simply describe the deities of foreign 120 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [2. 24. nations— inferior but not on that account fiendish. (Cf. Whitehouse in Hastings' D. B., art. ' Demon.') Later on nB' does come to mean ' devil.' Jos., B. /., vil. vi. 3, seems to have beheved that demons were the spirits of wicked dead men. ' Those called demons, which are no other than the spirits of the wicked that enter into men that are alive and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them.' It was always thought that our text contained the first distinct literary reference to the identity of the serpent and ' Satan.' But if the date assigned to the Slavonic Enoch (beginning of Christian era) be right, we have an earlier case, which also bears upon 'the devil's envy.' In 31 ^ of that book we read : 'The devil took thought as if wishing to make another world, because things were subservient to Adam on earth. . . . He became Satan after he left the heavens. His name was formerly Satanail. He conceived designs against Adam in such a manner that he entered and deceived Eve. But he did not touch Adam.' The date of the Apocryphic book (or rather books, for there are several recensions) called the ' Life of Adam and Eve ' is uncertain, but probably it contains fragments of very early Jewish tradition. (Cf Fuchs Einleitunff m Kautzsch, Apokr., ii. 510.) Here the devil induces the serpent (which had previously bitten Seth) to enter into the plot separately, Satan himself appearing as an angel (cf. 2 Cor. 1 1 '*), in which form he tempts Eve a second time while she is doing penance for her sin. Ecclus. 25 2* simply says that 'from a woman was the beginning of sin, and because of her we all die,' which may involve the immortality of man before the curse. Under what particular form ' Wisdom ' supposed the devil to have effected the temptation is a question of no great importance. Possibly he thought, in accordance with the Jewish tradition embodied in the ' Life of Adam and Eve,' that the evil one merely employed the perpent ; possibly that he borrowed the serpent's form ; to suppose (Grimm, p. 85) that he thought of the serpent as a mere 'Bild des Satans' is perilously like Philonian 'arguing away of the devil' (Gfrcirer, Philo, ii. 236). Gregg makes out an exceedingly good case for his theory that the temptation of Eve and the Fall is not here in question at all, but that the first murderer, Cain, is referred to. He points out with perfect truth that the Fall is treated as of small account in lo'*, while all the stress is laid on the sin of Cain, the first ' unrighteous man,' and that the root of his sin was indeed envy and jealousy. ' This motive,' he says, ' was at work in those who condemned and slew the righteous man ' (vv. 1^"^"). It is their action that is traced to its source in this line, which would be pointless if referring to Gen. 3.' This view is tenable. Clem. Rom. i Cor. 3* apparently quotes the passage in the words f^Xor aStKoi/ koi do-f/3^ ... Si' o5 kol $q.vaTos elcrffkOfv eir Tov Koo-fiov, and immediately applies it to the 2. 24.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 121 story of Cain and Abel. This is plain. But the quotation of I John 3 '2, ' Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him ? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous,' does not seem very decisive in regard to this text. Taking the commonly received interpretation, the 'envy of the devil' is not against God, as the Zoroastrian mythology described it (cf the Babylonian legend of the enmity of Tiamat, the great dragon or serpent, and Marduk, the god of light), but against man, either as being created after the image of God or (Slavonic Enoch) as having control of all creation. Josephus, Ant, I. i. 4, is rather indefinite : o o0is avvhiavra^fvoi roi Te 'A6d/x(M koX rfj ■yuvaiKi (j>dovepa>s €i;(ev €(ji ols aiiTOvs evbatfiovrjaftv wero TreTTetCjueVous rols Tov 6eov napayyekjiaa-i. Grimm quotes the Koran, Stir. ii. 7, 15, 17, for the envy of the devil both against men and (for revenge) against God. The Gospel of Nicodemus (c. 23 Thilo, p. 736), which is quite a repertory of demonology, speaks of Satan as the arch-devil, the begin- ning of death, the root of sin. Elsewhere, however, death is made his servant. Ibid., 20 sgq., cf Heb. 2 1*, Iva 8ia tov Bavdrov Karapyna^rj TOV TO KpoTOS e^ovTa TOV BavaTOVy tovt €(TTi TOV dta^oXov. TTcipafovcrt has its meaning settled by 12^^, d^lav SeoS Kpla-iv ■rreipaa-ovai. iL which renders these rightly by ' experiri,' has here the singular translation 'imitantur ilium.' Reusch is probably right in thinking that this is a mistake of a transcriber who did not understand ' tentant' All the Fathers, says Comely, quote the verse with 'imitantur.' It may be that the original translator did not see that avTov meant BdvaTos, and took it as referring to the devil, of whom it was hardly sense to say that they ' made trial of him.' ' Imitantur,' on the contrary, would make sense in connection with the devil, and would be supported by John 8 ^*, vfieis ck tov Trarpos tov dia$oKov ecTe' Kol Tag eTrtdvp-las tov iraTpos vp.o}v 6e\eT€ iroiflv. Zenner translates ' they challenge him.' fiepi's will have the same force as in i '^, but it is to be noted that the Armenian (Margoliouth, op. at., 282) has 'are of the number of his lot'; S'' 'of his portion'; Arab., ' worthy to serve him.' It may be added that in Ecclus. 17 ''' Israel is called the p,€pls Kvpiov. Gratz {Geschichte, iii. 444) condemns this verse as a Christian interpolation. His reasons are three : (i) the verse disturbs the con- nection of the passage ; (2) the last few words have no sense ; but cf Drummond, Philo, i. 195, 'though blameless souls only appear to die, those who are on the devil's side really experience death' ; (3) in the Jewish writings of this period no analogy can be found to the doctrine of the cosmical power of the devil. But interference of the fallen angels in human affairs was part of the Jewish belief of the time, and so was demoniacal possession. If it be urged that these prove no ' cosmical power ' but are isolated cases, so is this one^ the temptation of Eve. 122 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [3. i. 2, 3. I. But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, And there shall no torment touch them. 2. In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, And their departure was accounted punishment, Dahne's theory that Sm/3oXor is after all only a name for the serpent, and that the serpent is Philo's serpent, a mere allegory of evil pleasure, deserves notice only as a specimen of the work of such critics. Gfrorer adopts the same method. They ' first give a com- plete account of Philo's philosophy, and then hunt for pieces of that philosophy in the remaining literature' (Drummond) ; to which it may be added that they 'grudge if they be not satisfied,' and will distort meanings to produce agreement with their theories. 3. I. The Arm. (Margoliouth, op. cit., 285) has Bavaros for Bacravos, a doubtful improvement ; and 31 adds 'mortis ' to 'tormentum.' Other- wise there are no variants. iv x^'P' 6^0^ means 'under the protection of God.' The passages quoted from the Old Testament justify this translation (Deut. 33 ^ Isa. 51^^), but do not contain the exact phrase. Rather cf. John 10*^, ovx apirdpo(Tvvrj /icr' avTov. For e^oSos cf. note on cK/3a(rts 2^^. The 'unwise,' however, may very well be represented, as Farrar remarks, not by the actually wicked, but by stupid adherents of traditional orthodoxy like Job's friends, who certainly furnish here a case in point. But they are not wicked in the ordinary sense. The question of the possibility that the death of the body is not the death of the soul is an ancient one indeed. It is formulated by Euripides in the two celebrated lines, tIs olSev d to ^fjv jiev eVri kot- davnv TO KarBavfiv he f^v. This is clumsily put, but no doubt was meant to express what Shelley wrote : 'Ah no, he is not dead, he does not sleep, He is awakened from the dream of life.' Grimm quotes Maxim. Tyr., Diss, xxv., ov yap KoXoia-iv 01 ttoXXoi Bavarov^ avTo tovto rjv aOavatrias ^pxv '^^^ ycveats p,€\KovTos 0tdv. A passage from Philo, Quod Det. Pot. insid., § 15, runs thus: 6 fikv aofpos Te6vT]K€vai hoKOiv tov (jidapTov ^lov ^fj top d(l)dapT6vj though his Standpoint must have differed widely from Wisdom's. The other side of things is illustrated by the anonymous epistle to Diognetus(io), which distinguishes between 6 SoKmv ivBdhe Bavaros and 6 ovtios ddvaros OS (fivXaaaeTai Toit KaTOKpidritropevoLt els to nvp to alaviov. For death regarded as the gate of life (in the New Testament) cf Phil. i. 23, to dvakv(rai kol criiv ;(piVTO) elvai, 2 Cor. 5 ^, eKSrjiifjiTai en Tov (rmparos Kai ev8rjp.TJaat irpos tov Kvpiov. 3. fj d(f)^ fipmvTTopeia is best paralleled by Eccles. 12^, oTt ejropei6rj 6 avBpanos els oIkov almvos avTov. Luke 22 ^^, o viof pev tov dvSpanov Kara to apLcrpevov Tvopeverai. a-vvrpippa, 'breaking in pieces,' 'destruction.' IL ' exterminium.' It is possible that the apostates believed that death meant annihila- tion for all. awTplfia with the meaning of 'break in pieces' is found in (E in Ps. 2", etc., and the actual word a-ivrpippa in Isa. 22*, 59 ', a-ivTpippa Ka\ raXamonpia iv ohoXs avTmv (quoted Rom. 3 '"), Ecclus. 40^, I Mace. 2^ (twice). For ev elprfvrj cf Eth. Enoch, 102 ">, ' Have ye seen how that the end of the righteous is peace ?' Peace (i) is a rest (dvairatjo-is 4', ev dvairavaei earai, Rev. 14'^, dvairafia-ovTai eK tS>v Koirmv avTav), {rozn earthly troubles ; (2) is positive blessedness under God's protection. There is a slight indication of such 'peace' in Isa. 57 ', earai ev elp-qvn 1} Ta0^ avTov. For the old views in all their various forms cf. Charles, Eschatology; 'Z\xn\e.y^ IsraePs Hope of Immoriality ; Schwally, Das Leben nach devi Tode. The salient texts on the subject in the Old 124 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [3. 4- 5- 4. For even if they shall have been punished in the sight of men, Yet is their hope full of immortality ; 5. Yea, having been chastened but a Httle, they shall be blessed much ; For God did try them. And found them worthy of himself. Testament are cited by Farrar. dvanrava-is is the usual word in the New Testament, but in Heb. iv., where the word 'rest' constantly occurs, it is KaraTravcns- 4. R.V. entirely misses the grammatical point in KoXaarBSxriv, which plainly refers back these 'punishments' to the time of mortal life; the education or chastening of God's people by trouble. This seerns to favour the meaning 'before the eyes of men' for ev o-^n, but it is probably better to take it as equivalent to iv 66apaia is used here, but the looser aBavaala, which, as in 8 ", is capable of wide interpretation. For the idea in the text cf. Heb. 6 '^, {iXirh) tjv i>s ayKvpav f)(op.ev rijs ^/^ux^s d(riXoiv irarepa rj firjrepa virep efie ovk ea'Tiv ^ov a^cos kt\, I Thess. 2 '^, cir to nepmaruv i/xas a^las tov deov ; Rev. 3 *, 16". Grimm, remarking on the solution offered by Wisdom for the •enigma of the sufferings of the good on earth, cites Prov. 3 '', ' Whom the Lord loveth He reproveth,' and Ecclus. 2 '"*, as attempts to explain it without the belief in immortality. He further points out that Pseudo-Solomon, in accordance with his narrow particularism, would only find the righteous, who were to be rewarded, among the Jews. This, he says, is absolutely incompatible with the love of God for all his creatures as enunciated in 11^' S(/., and herein lay a fatal fault of the Jewish Alexandrine school — in the attempt to hold at once with philanthropic universalism and Jewish particularism. In 11 2* and 12', 'even these (the Canaanites) didst thou spare as being men,' there is some recognition of the difficulty. Dr. Farrar professes himself unable to discover this particularism. It is only necessary to compare the terms applied to the punishment of the Gentiles noXaCea-dai (ll *), e^erdCecrBai (ll '"), ^aaaviCea-Bai, (ll °), KaraSiKafeo-fiat (11 '"), /iacrriyoOo-^ai (12^^), with those used of Israel, nmSevea-Bat (as here), vovdere'ia-dai (ll^"), SoKi/idffo-^ai (ll'°), neipa- Cea-dai (as here) to be convinced (cf Introd., p. 20). A full statement of such views is in 2 Mace. 6 '^"'^ : ' In the case of other nations the Sovereign Lord doth with long suffering forbear, until that he punish them when they have attained unto the full measure of their sins ; but not so judged he as touching us, that he may not take vengeance on us afterwards when our sins be come to their height. Wherefore he never withdraweth his mercy from us.' 6. Smelting-fumace, ;;(£i)i/fiir^pioj', is a word found only in ffi and in ecclesiastical writers ; but the imagery of the trying of gold by fire is so common both in ancient and modern writers that quotations are superfluous. Grimm cites eight from the Old Testament and Apocr. besides I Pet. I ^, Ivaro hoKipiov vpav rrjs TriVreajs TroXvTLporepov xpv(rlov TOV airoXKvpevov dia TTvpos Se boKipa^op.hov evpiBrj. Isocrates, ad Demon. 25, and Ovid, Tristia, I. iv. 25, are also quoted. hoKipa^^iv for 'to test' and 'purify' (possibly used with some reference to Kt^SrfKos in 2 ^^) is also common. It is tempting to translate SkoKaprraipa, 'the complete fruit of a burnt offering' using Kapnos in its metaphorical sense. Indeed the idea of ' fruit ' in connecdon with offerings seems to have wholly disap- 126 THE BOOK OF WISDOM t3. 7. 7. And in the day of their inspection they shall shine forth, And as sparks in the stubble shall run to and fro. peared. Cf. Lev. I **, eav an-J twv weTeivav KapiroDjia Trpoa-cfyepei daipov avTov Ta> Kvplat ; l6^*, i^eXSmv iroirja-ci to 6\oKOiir<»/ia avTOV Km to oKoKapiTwfM row Xaov. For the idea cf. Rom. 12', irapacrTrjum to a-aip,aTa vpStv Bvo'lav ^axrav aylav rw 6ea evdpeo'TOVf and I Pet. 2 . S has ' like fruits of an offering of slaughter.' IL adds to this verse ' et in tempore erit respectus eorum,' and begins the next verse ' Fulgebunt justi, etc.,' and so the Douai version. Deane accepts this. Reusch (quoted by Deane) suggests that the Latin originally ran ' et in tempore respectus illorum fulgebunt ' : ' respectus ' was then mistaken for a nominative, and ' erit ' added. 7. The natural meaning of this much disputed passage seems to be that of a general judgment, in^ which those already referred to as the righteous, who are in the hand of God (no fresh subject having been supplied), will shine forth and run to and fro among the wicked like sparks emitted from the ' consuming fire ' of God, i.e. as the agents of his vengeance ; and they shall judge the nations, etc. Modern criticism, in its anxiety to prove that ' Wisdom ' could not have believed in a Judgment Day or in the Resurrection of the Body, violently wrests vv. ''■* to mean a reference to a class of persons of whom not a word has so far been heard — the righteous who shall be found alive when God shall come to judge the earth. These, who are not even thought worthy of a separate nominative to distinguish them, appear for two verses only and are never heard of again. Grimm very skilfully softens away the abrupt introduction of these folk (p. 86). Earthly trials, he says, will so chasten and purify the just who yet remain upon earth (w. ^"^), that they will have new strength to vanquish their foes, conquer the world, under God, and carry out all his designs. For the whole question cf. Additional Note B. We may confine ourselves here to the explanation of the text. 'Kma-Konfj is no doubt used with wide varieties of meaning (cf. notes on 2™), but Deane's 'time of their recompense in the other world' seems hardly admissible. On v. ^^ he gives a better rendering : ' the visitation of souls is the judgment when all anomalies shall be righted.' (II 'respectus' seems to have influenced translators much.) He expresses the opinion of rational readers when he notes that ' as the whole passage evidently refers to the life beyond the grave, it is a mistake to understand the time of visitation as referring to this world.' Pseudo-Solomon could hardly have used a more puzzling word. Cf. Isa. 14 ^^ Si^ TToWcov ■yei'ewv eTTcaKOTrr] eVrat avTOiV. 'AvaXdp.'ylrova-tv in like manner would naturally mean that the ' souls of the righteous' shall shine forth in glory, and all the parallel passages confirm this idea, e.g: Enoch 104 2, 'The righteous shall blaze and shine in the lights of heaven. ]?'ersevere in your warm desire for the Judgment, and it will appear to you ; for on the 3. 7-] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 127 potentates and all the helpers of them that plundered you will your tribulation be visited.' Dan. 12', 'They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament ; and ... as the stars for ever and ever.' Matt. 14*', '■'''■^ oi SiVaioi iKXafiyfrova-iv i>s 6 ijXios eV rrj fiaa-LXfia tov narpos. 2 Esdr. 7™, 'The faces of them which have used abstinence shall shine above the stars.' And to this passive state of glorification is added the activity denoted by SiaSpafioCi/Tat as a-rviv6ripes, to which St. Thomas Aquinas In Symb. ApostJixpos.,xxvm. (cited by Deane) refers, to prove the agility of the glorified body. But this is said to be impossible, because there is no trace of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body in this book ; which is begging the question. Similarly Grimm, in speaking of Gfrorer's idea that ' glorified bodies ' are here meant, remarks that this does not conflict with Wisdom's theory of 'the body as home and origin of evil' : which is begging another question. (See Additional Note ' On the Pre- existence of the Soul.') He objects, however, that such bodies would have to return upon earth to ' run to and fro, etc' : which is begging a third question. The execution on the wicked is surely to be done in the world to come. Preconceived theories discover themselves in every line of such reasoning. ' Like sparks among the stubble ' seems, as Farrar says, ' to be a general metaphor to express the victorious and consuming power of the just hereafter.' It is fully illustrated by passages of the Old Testa- ment. ' The house of Jacob shall be a fire and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble ; and they shall burn among them and devour them.' Joel 2 * (in a description of the day of the Lord), ' Like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble.' Mai. 4 ', ' The day cometh, it burneth as a furnace ; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be as stubble.' The stubble was apparently set on fire to serve, in the form of ashes, as a primitive manure for a new crop. Churton seems to refer the whole scene to this life, but on the next verse, when he speaks of the martyrs as looking forward to this triumph (which must consequently be after death), he speaks otherwise. In 2 Esdras i ^^ the Israelites them- selves are spoken of as ' stubble.' ' Your house is desolate, I will cast you out as the wind doth stubble '; cf also Ps. 83 ^^, ' O my God, make them like the whirling dust ; as stubble before the wind. As the fire that burneth the forest, and as the flame that setteth the mountains on fire ; so pursue them with thy tempest,' etc. Blunt's idea is that no vengeance of the saints is here indicated, but their ' martyrdom,' which would raise a flame (cf Latimer's dying speech at the stake) in the midst of the stubble of heathendom, by which it would be consumed. Cf Phil. 2 1°, 'A crooked and perverse genera- tion, among whom ye are seen as lights in the world.' This interpreta- tion would involve the rendering of cVio-KOTriy, 'visitation,' in its sense of ' trial,' ' tribulation,' and surely martyrdom is not alluded to at all. S" has for f i» KaXdfir] ' and stubble ' ; no doubt a mistake. 128 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [3. 8. g. 8. They shall judge nations and have dominion over peoples ; And their Lord shall be king for ever. 9. They that trust in him shall understand truth, And the faithful shall abide with him in love. 8. There is no need to refer this to an earthly Messianic kingdom in accordance with the carnal views set forth in Apoc. Baruch. (Syr.), c. 29, Enoch 58, 2 Esdr. 6^', 2 is^i), etc. In the New Testament, where such ideas are certainly not to be found, the saints appear as assessors with Christ at the final judgment. Matt. 19 '^^ 'Ye shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.' I Cor. 6^, ovK oiSare on 01 ayiot tov KOtrfiov Kpivova-iv; Rev. 20*, which, however, refers to the millennium. The locus classicus on which such ideas depended (Siegfried) seems to have been Dan. 7 22, ' Judgment was given to the saints of the Most High ; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.' In Ecclus. 4 ^^ the privilege is reserved for ' the adherents of wisdom,' which means little there ; for the wise and the righteous are the same. ' Their Lord ' is the rendering of A. V. and IL, ' Regnabit dominus illorum.' This translation gives a better sense than 'shall be their king,' (R.V., Grimm, S:^, etc.), for God is already the king of the righteous ; what is promised here is that he shall be king not only over them, but over all the world, in which his sway is certainly at present disowned. Gregg remarks that ' except for the added them' this is a verbatim transcript from Ps. 10 '*', jSaa-iXcva-ei Kvpios els rbv ala>va Koi eir tov almva toC almvos. But this is precisely the point at issue, and as regards eschatology, no unimportant one. There is really no 'added /keiH ' in this passage at all. The avTav is simply a casual qualifica- tion of Kvpios. 9. To this verse is appended in some MSS. the whole of 4 ^'', ' Grace and mercy are with his chosen, and his eVio-KOTrij (whatever be the meaning) with his holy ones.' IL and ffi"* omit the latter half, and they are followed by R.V., Siegfried, Zenner ; but A.V. following the Complutensian, as usual, retains both, as do ffi^-*^ and all the versions. But the minor variations in the text are many. Even IL seems to have read flpfjvtj for eXtor ('quoniam donum et pax est ejus electis'). Other differences are given in full by Grimm ad loc. He thinks they render the passage suspect. a-vvrja-ovcnv oKrjBeiav, ' shall understand the truth of God's mysterious dealings with men.' It is not general knowledge or a higher insight into truth, that is meant. That is a Platonic idea. P/iaedo, Sia, which is quoted, only expresses this very indistinctly. It refers rather to relief from earthly folly than to actual 'knowledge.' Our text comes nearer to John 7 ^", edv ns fleXi; rb 60\.r)jj,a avTov Troielr yvaxrcTai rrepl rrjs SiSaxrjs irorepov en tov 6fov itTTiv rj iya arr' efxavTOv XaXS. 3. lo.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 129 10. But the impious shall receive punishment in accord with their reasonings, Which neglected the right and were runagates from the Lord. Iv dyan-rj may be construed either with wpoarfiivovtriv or with 01 TTio-Tot. The first seems better, on account of the parallel afforded J)y John 15 ^*', e'av raff iVTokds fiov rr)pr]fTt]Te^ fxevelre iv ttj dydirrj fiov. It seems to be implied here that the righteous will, after judging the wicked, abide with God in heaven. If this be so, we have a distinct step in eschatology. Possibly Enoch (91-104) represents the earliest example of this belief. The righteous are there the objects of angelic intercession (104I); to them will the portals of heaven be opened (104 2) : their joy will be like that of the angels of heaven (104*) : and they will yet become companions of the heavenly host (104''). So, according to the Apocalypse of Baruch (about 60 A.D.), the righteous will be made like unto the angels (5 1 '"), while in the Similitudes of Enoch they are actually to become angels (41^, 51*), cf Charles, Eschatology, 235, and Fairweather in Hastings, D. B., V. 3053. Heaven is also spoken of as the everlasting home of the good in Assumptio Mosis, x. 9. Jubilees, xxiii. 31, which is quoted and requoted to this purpose, contains no mention of heaven at all. 10. 'EniTtiiia is again the wrong word. It is a mistake, repeated in 2 Cor. 2 \ Ikovov Ta TOiovTco rj eTTLTifila avrrj rj dno rav TrXetoj/oJi', and in ecclesiastical Greek (Grimm). It is very likely that the error arises from confusion with the constantly used plural of the real word imriiuov ; emTiijiritns is actually used in 12 ^°. But the only correct meaning of iTririjiia is ' citizenship.' S"" translates ' blame.' The Xoyitr/ioi referred to are the ctkoXioi Xoyicrjxo'i. of i ^, 2 ^ (where the idea is fully expanded). We seem to have here the first trace of the theory of punishment of like offences by like punishments, which is worked out with such wearisome detail in the last chapters. Its germ is to be found in Prov. i ^-^'j ' They would none of my counsel, they despised all my reproof : therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.' BiKMou may be either neuter or masculine. Bois {Essai, 385) prefers the first on account of the parallel in v. ", p-o(j>iav Koi nalSeiav 6 i^ovdevSiv, and on the commonsense ground that the wicked did not neglect the righteous at all — far from it. Siegfried objects that StKatoa-vvrj would have been used, and that the parallel to be preserved is 'neglected the just man, and revolted from the Lord.', But the neglect of 'justice' (meaning Jewish discipline) and apostasy from the Lord run hand in hand. To SUmov for 'justice' does, moreover, occur in Luke 12'^, tI dfj)' tavrSiv ov Kpivfre to biKmov j Col. 4S ''^ SiKaiov KOI Tijv lO-OT-jjra . . . napexetrde. Job 34 ^",2 Macc. lO^^. And it is to be noted that St. Augustine (cited by Deane) quoted the passage in the form ' qui neglexerunt justitiam.' I 130 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [3. ii. 12. 11. For he that setteth at naught wisdojn and discipline is unhappy. And vain is their hope and their labours unavailing, And their works unprofitable. 12. Their wives are lightminded and their children evil j Accursed is their generation. 1 1. The best way to avoid the difficulty of the change of number from singular to plural is not to put the first line in a parenthesis (as R.V. and Bois), or to translate with Siegfried 'vain is the hope of such^ but simply to refer this line to the preceding verse, and begin a fresh statement (which indeed joins naturally with what follows) at 'vain is their hope.' v d(jip6ua>v iv 'la-parjX, and Deut. 22^', of an unchaste bride, eiroirja-ev a.<^po(Tvvr)v iv vioii 'la-pmjk. So in Prov. 5 * (<&) the feet of the harlot are n-dSfr cK^poavvrjs. Bretschneider translates simply 'adulterous,' citing ()33 and nijaj from 2 Sam. {I.e.) and Deut. 22^1 : he even thinks that (jipovria-Ls in 10* may be 'chastity.' Of. notes on v. ^ above. 'Accursed is their generation' seems to belong naturally to this verse rather than to the next. The ambiguous word ' generation ' is adopted because both the Greek y€V€a-is and jIL ' creatura ' are equally capable of the two renderings, 'their begetting' (R.V.) and 'their offspring' (A.V., &^,- Grimm, Siegfried). If the former view is taken, 3. 13-] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 131 13, For blessed is the barren that is unstained, She that hath not known wedlock in transgression, She shall have fruit in the examination of souls. the meaning may be 'their sexual relations are unhappy.' If the latter, we have a return to the old doctrine of heredity, which has been strained to the uttermost in modern times. This may be called the old-fashioned Israelitish view, as the exponent of such things, the Son of Sirach, expresses it in 41 ^, 'The children of sinners are abominable sinners,' etc. ; 2 Esdr. 9 ", ' Like as the field is, so is also the seed.' But the revolt against such teaching is found in Job 21 '", '(Ye say) God layeth up his iniquity for his children ; let him recompense it unto himself that he may know it,' and is fully set forth in Ezek. 18'"*, where, after quoting the proverb of the sour grapes and the teeth of the children, the prophet says, ' ye shall not have occasion any more to use the proverb in Israel. Behold all souls are mine ; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine. The soul that sinneth it shall die.' The healthier notion of personal responsibility was here adopted. Is it possible that 'Wisdom' surrenders it? If he does, it is but one more instance of his confused philosophy. 13. 'Unstained' is given as the rendering of dfiiavros in preference to 'undefiled (S^, ' not led astray '), the meaning being apparently moral rather than physical, and referring to a ' mixed ' not an ' adulterous ' union. The word ' examination ' is used rather in a modern sense, ' inspection ' with a view to approbation or condemnation. The argument, such as it is, does not seem 'confused' (Farrar). The object is twofold, (i) a rebuke of mixed marriages between Jewesses and Gentiles ; (2) the refutation of the old-fashioned idea that many children were a blessing and a proof of divine favour. The first point is proved by Siegfried. Mixed marriages are con- demned in Ezra 9 and 10, Neh. 13°^ (where the result is that, the children forget their mother-tongue), Mai. 2 ", Tobit 4 ^^ (cf Bertholet in Budde, op. «/., p. 406), and that they are not mentioned in i Mace. I '' sg'g. and 2 Mace. iv. 13 s^f. among the signs of 'Graecomania' (Grimm) proves nothing. Grimm will have it that here, as in napavo- jios koIttj (v. ^^) tinofioi vTTvoi, (4 ^), all unlawful unions, whether adul- terous or contracted with da-efieis, are meant. Bruch, Weisheitslehre, 329, interprets ' a wife joined to an apostate Jew is happy if she have no children.' But how could she be 'unstained' ? cTTe'ipa must mean a barren wz/e. It is never used of a virgin, though commentators, both Romanist and Protestant, have taken it so, in order to discover in the passage the praise of celibacy. Gratz even, Gesch. derjud., iii. 495, thought the reference was to conventual life, and condemned both vs. '^•'* as Christian interpolations of late date. koiVt; is an euphemism for sexual intercourse, found only in Biblical Greek, the classical words so used being (vvr) and Xf^or. 132 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [3. 14. 14. Yea, and the eunuch who hath not wrought unlawfulness with his hand, Nor devised evil things against the Lord ; For to him shall be given faith's peculiar grace. And a portion in the temple of God more pleasing to his soul. In KopTTos (fruit) there seems a distinct reference to Ps. 127 as below. The second point, that many children are not always a divine blessing (cf. Ps. 127^, 'children are an heritage of the Lord ; and the fruit of the womb is his reward,' and Rachel's cry in Gen. 30 ^, ' Give me children or else I die '), is already put strongly even by Ben-Sira, 16 1, 'Desire not a multitude of unprofitable children . . . for one is better than a thousand ; and to die childless than to have ungodly children.' For the old idea cf also Exod. 23 ^, Lev. 20 ^''•^i, Deut. 7 ''', Ps. 128 '. On the question of asceticism cf Bois {Essai, 278), ' Sterility is conceived not as a merit but as a misfortune, to be compensated in the next world.' The barren is happy, if she be fure ; the eunuch if he be a righteous man ; not otherwise. Cornely has collected the texts where multitude of children is cited as a proof of God's blessing, and those where childlessness is mentioned as a reproach ; but he very candidly refuses to connect r) a-Tfipa with the idea of voluntary celibacy, and quotes the passages where a-rupa certainly means the barren married" woman. These are Gen. 1 1 ^, Koi tjv Sdpa a-relpa kol ovk (TeKvoTTold, 25 2' (of Rebekah), 29 2' (of Rachel). In Exod. 2320 we have oiiK ea-rai ayovos ouSe a-relpa enl Trjs yrjs crov. All these plainly refer to the woman who is married but who does not bear children. To this purpose Cornely quotes TertuUian (without any reference), ' Sterilem mulierem appellabant, quam Graeci o-rclpav dicunt, quae non capit semen genitale.' 14. This translation follows the A.V. and il. The R.V. translates, ' there shall be given him for his faithfulness a peculiar favour,' with margin, ' the grace of God's chosen.' S^ has ' on account of his goodness and faithfulness.' Those who would extract from the text a glorification of celibacy think that dvoOxos is the ' spado evangelicus ' or voluntary celibate, i.e. the third kind of eunuch mentioned in Matt. 19 ^^ ; but cf note on trrelpa in the preceding: verse. To this word evvoxJxos plainly corre- sponds, and this alone is sufficient to upset Margoliouth's theory (op. ci/.) that the other meaning of ] 1 V) lOtliO ' faithful,' is here to be taken. This would rob the passage of all point. The word is no doubt used in its natural sense, of a person in- capai/e of hegettmg children, and the reference to Isa. 563-6 seems clear. In Deut. 23 '^ die eunuch and the bastard were classed together as excluded from the assembly of the Lord, Isaiah consoles S. 15J THE BOOK OF WISDOM 133 15. For the fruit of good labours is glorious, And the root of understanding never faileth. them, ' Neither let the eunuch say, Behold I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord of the eunuchs (85, ' to the eunuchs,' which may also be the meaning of ?^) that keep my sabbaths and choose the things that please me, and hold fast by my covenant : unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a memorial and a name better than of sons and of daughters.' Probably on account of these last words the R.V. adds, to explain fiujuii/peorfpos, 'more delightsome than wife or children! There seems no reason for this expansion. The word (3L 'acceptissima') means simply 'more pleasing' (than any other), cf. 2 Mace. 12^'', duaycoyoTepov i)(pu>vTO toIs Trcpl rbv 'loibav : ' behaved very rudely to,' etc. The ' temple of the Lord ' is heaven, as in Ps. 1 1 *, Kvpios f'v vdai Aylco aiiTOv (repeated in Habak. 2^°), 18", ^kovo-iv in. vaov ayiov avToii qxovfjs pLov. ' Faith's peculiar grace ' seems an indefinite term without exact meaning. ' The gift of true faith ' (Grimm) seems the best explana- tion of it. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that some definite person is here referred to : possibly some Jewish prince who was high in favour at the Roman court, like Daniel at that of Nebuchadnezzar. To such a person this text might well be addressed, as adjuring him in spite of his position to keep true to the religion of his fathers. For KXrjpos S'' has |QJ^, probably a mistake for ]rr\c^ 15. A curious connection between this and the preceding verses is suggested by Margoliouth, op. cif., p. 287. He quotes from a Rabbinic tract, ' In the hour when a man is taken from the world without children, he weeps and laments. God says to him : " Why weepest thou ? because thou hast not established fruit in the world, there is a fruit for thee that is fairer than children." Thus the generations of a man are good works' ttovoi, however, is probably more than mere ' labours,' and refers as in v. ^ to the tribulations of the righteous endured on earth. r\ pl^a Ttjs s is not ' the origin of understanding,' but is used exegetically : ' the root, which is understanding.' dSian-rmTof (' quae non concidat,' IL) is properly 'not falling in ruin,' and so here 'flourishing,' like to bring forth perfect fruit, in opposition to v. 16. In this verse Farrar discovers an instance of ' Chiasmos.' ' In the first clause,' he says, ' the adjectives in the original are placed at the beginning and end, and each clause balances the other.' ' For of ^ood toils the fruit is glorious, and unfailing is the root of good mtelligence.' Unfortunately the last adjective 'good' is wanting altogether. The order of words is a perfectly natural one, and the attempt to extract from such passages the rhetorical devices of an Isocrates is ridiculous. 134 THE BOOK OP WISDOM [3. i6. i;^ 1 6. But the children of adulterers shall not come to maturity, And seed from unlawful wedlock shall vanish away. 17. For even if they be long lived, they shall be reckoned for naught, And at the end their old age shall be without honour ; 16. The idea that/xoixoi here meant apostate Jews is an old one, and was held by Luther, whose marginal annotation on v. 12 sqq. is quoted by Grimm, Nachtigal, Engelbreth, and Dereser, and is maintained by Siegfried, who points out that since the time of Hosea adultery had been a common image for unlawful dealings with the heathen. If dfiiavros in v. 13 be taken as 'pure from all sexual intercourse,' then fioix°i- does literally mean adulterers ; but that is questionable. ' Shall not come to maturity ' is the natural meaning of areKetrTa eVrai, and corresponds well to the preceding verse abidirTioTos fj pi'fa Trjs (fypovrjo-fais, but in the margin of A.V. we find the strange render- ing 'shall not be partakers of holy things.' This has its origin in the meaning which dreXfo-Ta might possibly have : ' not initiated in the mysteries.' C£ Plato, Phaedo, 6gc, os av djxvxfTos Koi dreXecrTos els "AiSou dcjiUriTai., iv Poppopco KfiVerai. Liddell and Scott cite Gregor. Naz. for the use of the word in the sense of ' unbaptized.' The passage in 23 ^-^j which speaks of bastards as to be excluded from the services of God, was also clearly in the mind of the trans- lators. But the meaning seems settled by 4 ^, xXSi/er dTeKea-roi. IL has 'in inconsummatione erunt' This is not necessarily a mistake for ' inconsummati erunt ' (which Farrar took from Grimm to be the actual text), but is supported by a passage in Tertullian (yirfw. Val., x., quoted by Deane), ' inconsummatio generationis.' 17. ji-aKpo^Loi. of course refers not to the adulterers, as Grotius thought, but to their offspring. The construction is 'ad sensum,' and not strict. If Pseudo-Solomon is really referring to technical adultery, the judgment on these unfortunates seems cruel indeed. If an apostate generation is meant, the denunciation is more intelligible, cf. Keerl, quoted by Bissell ad loc. The idea of the accursedness of the children is, however, that of Ecclus. 41 ^ riKva l38eKvKTa ylverai TeKva djiapraiKiiiv . But if ' Wisdom ' here maintains generally the doctrine of hereditary sin, extending even to children, he is contradicting 11**, e'Xf els ndyras on iravra dvvadrja-aVj raff dperas avTav rrjs IcrTofiias aTradavan^oiajis. Surely no one would suppose that Diodorus meant anything but figurative immortality. A better-known passage is that in Xen., Mem., II. i. 33, where Virtue says, when my friends die, ov fj.€Ta \rj6rjs aTtp.Qi Keivrat, dWa jLtera fJLVrjprjs tov del -)(p6vov vpvovpevoi OdWovcri. Bois {Essai, 386) points out that it is remarkable that after chap. 3 ' Wisdom ' speaks only of an ' immortality mnemonique ' ; still more so that he should call it ddavaa-ia. He suggests that the second line originally ran ddavaa-ia yap ia-ri Ra\ pvrip,r) iv avrrj. &^ has 'the memory of it is immortality.' Menzel, rejecting the idea of Greek influencBj cites also Ecclus. 37 '^% 39 ^\ 41 12 j Eccles. 2 1°, 9 ^. l~ Gregg's note is to the point : 'The Jew of the Old Testament was a part of a whole : his conception of life hardly allowed him to ask, " What will become of me ?" ' A subjective immortality, such as in 4. 2.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 137 2. When it is present men do imitate it, And when it is gone do regret it : And in eternity it walketh crowned in pomp, As having conquered in a contest of stainless struggles. Ps. 112'', was what he had been taught to desire. It is strange how this doctrine has again come to the front with the revival of the corporate consciousness through the teaching of Comte. Cf the lines of his English disciple, George Eliot : Oh may I join the choir invisible Of those immortal dead who live again In minds made better by their presence, etc. But this is surely the purest rhetoric ; the merest metaphor. It is not the immortality of the soul. 2. Hon, Od., III. xxiv. 31, ' Virtutem . . . sublatam ex oculis quaerimus invidi.' We note the cacophony in vodovtnv ineXdoitrav. ev Tm atavi A.V., %, Grimm, translate 'for ever.' R.V. 'throughout all time.' S>^ |Vl\S is indefinite, like alav itself Deane ex- plains the difference between the two uses of alavtos as applied to mountains, Hab. 3 ", ^ovvoi. alavwi, and to God in Bar. iv. 8, 5fos alavios. In ffi fiovvoi almviot is immediately followed by iropelas alavias {6eov). But alavtos is not aimv,* and if the controversy on Eternal Punishment had not arisen, alav when used absolutely would probably have been unhesitatingly translated ' eternity,' as in 4 Mace. 17 '*. Here, compared with the preceding verse, it seems correct. a-Te(j}avri(t>opov(ra. The crown is claimed as a trace of Greek custom, and as the reward of a victor in games it is so (cf. i Cor. 9 ^) ; but as a sign of rejoicing or festivity it is common enough in later Jewish life, cf 2^; Ecclus. i'', 6^°, 15 ^ Grimm's references to Lamentations, Psalms, Proverbs, and Ezekiel seem indefinite and the passages figurative ; but cf Judith 15'^ for ' garlands ' in rejoicings. Two distinct renderings of the last line are possible, dfjuavrav adXav may either mean 'of unstained prizes' (R.V., A.V.) or 'of unstained struggles' (iL ' incoinquinatorum certaminum praemium,' where possibly ' proelium ' should be read). With the first translation the meaning is ' perfect rewards, unstained by unfairness of winning or savage passions on the part of the competitors,' as in earthly con- tests. The second, which Grimm adopts and A^ seems to support, is explained ' the struggles of the virtuous life, unstained by selfishness or sin.' The latter is more in accordance with the philosophic idea of life as a warfare, which is found in Plato, Phaedo, 114c, Rep. 6^\c, and often in Epictetus, and is elaborated in 4 Mace. 171^. For the first interpretation the ' amaranthine crown ' of i Pet. 5 ■•, and the ' undefiled inheritance ' of i Pet. i * are cited, but neither of these 138 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [4. 3- 3. But though it be prohfic, the multitude of the impious shall be of no profit, And from its bastard slips shall not send its root deep, Nor shall establish a firm foundation. exactly answers to a/iiavTov affkov. If we translate ' contests,' affKos is probably the true nominative. 3. The literal sense of ttX^Aj? is simply ' multitude,' as in il. The meaning 'brood' (R.V., A.V.) is attached to it by its conjunction with wokvyovov. The first 'Psalm of Solomon' contains similar ideas, which are, however, interpreted allegorically. S^ ' The multitude of the offspring of the wicked shall not profit' Xi>rtcniJ.evv fioax^vfidTaiv, but it seems unnecessary if the translation given above is accepted. Indeed vo^mc should not be pressed. It need not mean literally ' bastard,' but ' spurious ' generally (as of children, e.£: born of the hated mixed marriages). IL has 'spuria vitulamina' — the latter a curious word apparently coined from 'vitulus'=/ido-xos-, with a side reference to 'vitis.' St. Augustine, De Doctr. Ckr., ii. 12, finds fault with the derivation, but iioa-xos may mean a young shoot as well as a calf (Lidd. and Sc. give two separate words), and the word seems to be used by St. Ambrose (quoted by Deane) in the sense of 'young plants of grace.' The word, however, was so little understood that some translators of the Vulgate substituted 'adulterinae plantationes,' possibly on the hint of St. Augustine, I.e. S*", 'deceitful suckers.' An ancient glossary quoted by Ducange (Cornely, p. 149) has 'vitilamen planta ilia infructuosa qui nascitur a radice vitis,' than which nothing can be plainer. Levi {Eccle'siastigue, i. 22) notes that we have here a certain imitation of Ecclus. 40 '*, but that none of the Greek expressions of the original appear in the paraphrase. Hence he argues that Pseudo-Solomon had the Hebrew before him and not the Greek. This statement is, however, not quite correct. There is much resemblance between the Greek of Wisdom, TroXuyoi/ov aa-c^aiv TrXrjdtJS ov ;^p?^a"ijueua"6t koi €k vodcov fiotrx^vfiarcov ov dwcrei pi^av els ^ados, and Ecclus. I.e., CKyova aa-e^wv oi nkriBvvei xXaSouj koi filial cLK-aBapToi err' aKporofiav irirpas. ' Shall not send its root deep ' : cf the Parable of the Sower in Matt. 13 5, Luke 8 i^, and for the contrary idea Eph. 3I', Col. 2', and Ecclus. 24 '2, eppl^aa-a iv Xaal SfSo^aa-fiei/a. Col. 2 '', eppiftOfieVoi Kai €7roiKodopiOvp.€vot. 4."4>S-] tHE BOOK OF WISDOM 139 4. For even if in their shoots they blossom for a season, Standing unstably they shall be shaken by the wind, And be rooted out by the violence of the winds. 5. Their branches shall be broken off ere they be full grown, And their fruit be unprofitable, unripe for eating. Yea, meet for nothing. 4. It is better to translate dvadoKj] (with Grimm) ' put forth buds and leaves,' for there can be no real 'flourishing' in such a case ; only an outward show. Still less can it mean as in classical Greek, 'revive,' 'flourish again.' npos Kaipov is used in Luke 8^', i Cor. 7 * in a like sense, in the former case of a similar growth. The sudden change of subject from nXfjdos to fioax^ii^aTa caused . Beza to read (3E/3tjKOf for ^e^ij/cdva. The expression cVio-0aXms /Sf^T/KOTa is an awkward one, but may be justified by Archil., 52, aa-c^aXe'ms ^f^^Koos : 'standing steady' (quoted by Deane) Soph., £1., 979 {fv ^e^rjKois), Hdt., ix. 106, etc., oi ev Te'Xei $ePS>Tes, 'standing in office.' We may compare the use of Kelfuu to supply parts of io-tt/jui. But others would translate ' ascendentia ' or ' succrescentia ' : ' growing up ' unstably. Cf. Ps. 92 '', ' the wicked spring as the grass, and all the workers of iniquity do flourish.' For ^e/3i;(coVa &*' slavishly, 'they walk not safely.' iwb piat aviftav. The same word aveixos is used in both clauses — the first instance of the tautology which disfigures the last few chapters of the book. For 'violence' IL has the unusual word 'nimietas.' Cf Deane's note. For the metaphor of 'uprooting' cf Deut. 29 2', 'the Lord rooted them out of their land,' and Jude '^, ' autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots.' If children of mixed marriages are referred to, the allusion in the verse may be to their want of firm grounding in the religion of their fathers. 5. The position of areXto-Toi at the end of the line shows that it is predicative, and not as in A.V. a mere epithet. The word is un- common : cf Deane's note. In axpr/a-Tos there is a reference to ov XiJ-ri^ adds an extraordinary interpolation : 'And if he die in length of days, he shall be found in honour,' which is inconsistent with the context, and can only be explained as an attempt to add a second member to a verse supposed to be too short. 3L translates iv avawavaei ' in refrigerio,' by which word it renders in Acts 3 '" '^'" dpd^v^is and in Ps. 65 '^ dva^vxv. But neither of these words appears here in any MS. Older Romanist commentators found in this passage, and especially in this rendering ' refrigerium,' a reference to the lightening of the pains of purgatory by the prayers of the living and the comfort of the angels. But J. A. Schmid (quoted by Bissell), himself of the same church (and with him Cornely), regards this as absurd, though he says that ' heaven in the language of the ancient church is locus refrigerii.' Farrar is no doubt right when he says that 'it is unlikely that these general expressions correspond to any rigid or detailed system of eschatology in the mind of the writer, and it is idle to quote them as authorities for purgatory, the intermediate state, etc' The meaning seems to be simply rest after trials and sufferings, as in 3 ' 'they are in peace.' Rev. 14", 'Yea, saith the Spirit, for they rest from their labours.' Isa. 57', 'The righteous is taken away from the evil to come. He entereth into peace.' It is hardly necessary to say that in this passage, as in those referring to childlessness, the writer is combating a deep-rooted traditional view, according to which not only was long life a sign of God's favour, but early death a severe punishment. 8. Grimm rather strangely seems to regard the second line as mean- ing, ' the limit of age is settled, but not by number of years ; rather 142 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [4. g. 9. But understanding is grey hair unto men, And an untarnished life is ripe old age. by the decree of God or the moral laws of the universe.' This might correspond to the disputed expression biaQrjKT) a&ov in Ecclus. 14'^, which is by some interpreted the 'limitation of life allowed to man by the lower world' (Ryssel : 'die mit der Unterwelt ausgemachte Vertragsfrist '). But surely the meaning is ' is estimated not by years but by the righteousness of the man who lives and dies.' Grimm himself quotes an exactly parallel passage from Seneca, E-pp. 93, 'Actu vitam metiamur non tempore.' He cites also Cic, Tusc, i. 45, 'Nemo parum diu vixit qui virtutis perfectae perfecto functus est munere.' Philo (?) de Vita Contempt., § 8, says of the Therapeutae : npfo-fivrepovs ov tovs TroXverels koi waXaiovs vojxi^ovcnv aXX' eVt KOfiiBT] veovs naldas, eav oyj/e r^ff npoaip^ascos epao'Oiiia'tv : a passage which made Zeller account Pseudo-Solomon to belong to the sect. (See Introd., p. 45.) Again Philo, de Abrah., § 46, o a\r)6eia TTpfrr^vrepos ovk cv ix7]k€l ^povov, aXV iv eTraiverca ^i(o decopelTai. Plutarch, Consol. ad Apoll., c. 17, ovx 6 iiaxpoTaTOS fiios apia-ros dXX' 6 (TTTOvdaiOTaTos . . . TO yap koKov ovk iv fxrjKei ;^/>oi'OV Oereop, aXX' eV apeTjj Kal rfj Kaipi<^ (TvfijxfTpLa . . . and again, specially illustrating our text, fiirpov yap tov /3tou to KoKbv, ov to tov )^p6vov p-rfKos. The remarks of Drummond, Philo, i. 179, on the weakness of this comparison with Therapeutic ideas are good. ' Our author is com- bating an objection to the doctrine of the providential government of the world, founded on the fact that the righteous not only were sometimes without the blessing of children, but even subject to premature death. This he repels not by reference to a Therapeutic practice, but by saying that the real value of life depends not on its length but on its contents,' etc. But, on the other hand, Eccl. 7 ", ' Be not overmuch wicked, neither be thou foolish ; why shouldest thou die before thy time?' which is quoted by Churton, seems rather to illustrate the traditional view than that here given. 9. IL somewhat obscurely translates 'Cani sunt sensus hominis,' which requires A Lapide's gloss : ' Canities hominis aestimatur et censetur esse non coma cana, sed ipse sensus et prudentia.' We have here again an idea which may be plentifully illustrated from classical sources. Menander, Fragm. ed. Meineke, p. 226, ov\ ax Tplx^s nniova-iv ai Xeuxai <(>popelv. Seneca, de Brev. Vitae, c. 8, ' Non est quod quemquam propter canos aut rugas putas diu vixisse. Non enim ille diu vixit sed diu fuit.' Cic, de Sen., xviii. § 62, ' non cani non rugae repente auctoritatem arripere possunt ; sed honeste acta superior aetas fructus capit auctoritatis extremos.' There is possibly actual reference to the passage in Chrysost., de Sacerd., 11. vii. 163, ov xf"7 '■'?>' a-vvfo-iv rjXLKia Kpivfiv, ovhe tov TTp^afivTrfv awo tt/s ttoXms fioKipaCfiv. On the other hand, Shakespeare's 'How ill white hairs become a fool and jester' {//e>i. IV. (2) v. iv.) will|occur to all. 4. 10.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 143 10. Being acceptable to God he was cherished, And dwelling among sinners was translated ; ^XiKi'a yfjpas seems at first pleonastic (5L 'aetas senectutis'), and one older critic suggested ' stature ' for fjXiKia, as in Matt. 6 2', ('add one cubit to his stature'); Luke 2'^, irpoiK.oivTfv tji cro(j)ia KQl Tjj rjXlKLa. But having regard to the derivation of ^Xixia, there is no difficulty in translating it ' the age which is required to count as old age ' ; for this 'ripe old age' is a sufficient rendering. &^ has 'stature of old age,' as S^, but writes |ZiDQ_»j for (ZiDQ^, corrected in margin. 10. There is no doubt that Enoch is meant. Cf. Gen. 5 ^*, evrjpea-rrfaev 'Evcbp^ TM 6ia KoX ovx evpl(TKfTO, oTi pcTfdriKfv avTov 6 Beos. Margoliouth, op. cz'A, p. 269, objects that there is tautology in fidpea-Tos and r]yaTTr]6ri, and suggests from the Chaldee Dmns, which may mean either 'he was loved,' or 'mercy was laid on him,' the latter interpretation (supposing always an original Hebraic text),but apitrxdv and ayairaaBai have quite different meanings. Cf. Bretschneider, Dissert., to the same effect. The words are almost exactly repeated in the Greek of Ecclus. 44 '^, 'Eva>x fvrjpiaTrja-ev Kvpia Ka\ pfTereBr), but the words have little or no relation to the Hebrew text (Ryssel in Kautzsch, Apokr., i. 450). Cf Heb. 11'' for the same turn of expression. It is not necessary to suppose any connection between the three writers ; they may all have followed the Greek text of Genesis. For legends of Enoch cf Bousset, Antichrist (Eng. trans.), 27, 58, 203-208. He and Elias are at times designated as the 'two witnesses ' : this legend, Bousset says, appears in Irensus, Hippo- lytus, and TertuUian. We have here the first example of the curious avoidance of proper names which marks the author of Wisdom. To suppose with Lincke, Samaria und seine Propheten, p. 131, that the names of Jewish saints were omitted through hostility to the Jewish hierocrats is hardly possible. Farrar's explanation, that Enoch is not expressly named because his case is treated as being typical and not isolated, does not explain why no Old Testament saint is mentioned by name. The other suggestion, viz. that it was unnecessary to name them because the book was addressed to Jewish apostates or waverers, is in accordance with the view above expressed (Introd., p. i8), as to the real object of the work. So Stade, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, ii. 436. A precisely opposite explanation, viz. that the heathen princes to whom the book is addressed would not care to know the names of Hebrew saints, is suggested by Grimm. But- the point remains a mysterious one. In another place (p. 190) Grimm attributes the peculiarity to mere 'Ziererei' or affectation. Margoliouth's idea 144 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [4. ii. 12. 11. He was plucked away, lest wickedness should alter his understanding, Or guile deceive his soul. 12. For the fascination of wickedness doth obscure things that are good, And the vertigo of desire perverteth the guileless mind. {Expositor, 1900, i. 40) that the writer avoided proper names because he did not wish to spoil the appearance of his Greek, is peculiar. II. The motive here given for the removal of Enoch is different from that assumed both in the Greek ('an example of repentance to all generations ') and the Hebrew (' a sign of recognition,' or ' an instruc- tive example ') in Ecclus. 44 '^ Siegfried cites Bereshith Rabba, c. 25, as giving the same motive as ' Wisdom ' for Enoch's removal. Grimm remarks that the case of Enoch is connected with what goes before, as a proof that even an untimely death may be a positive blessing — a gift of God — a release. (Cf possibly 2 1, ' There is no healing in the end of a man '). Margoliouth, op. cit., p. 270, points out that the idea that death may be a mercy was not first introduced by Christianity. He quotes Bereshith Rabba, § 9, 'All the time the righteous are alive they are at war with their inclinations ; when they are dead they are at peace.' Cf. Ecclus. 22", 38 ^^ 30 ^^ (?§). This agrees with the sense of this passage, but it is incorrect to quote liaKapiTrjs (used of a dead man) as an illustration from the Greek. That is probably a euphemism. Noack ( Ursprung des Christenthums, i. 228), in accordance with his theory of authorship, referred the verse to Christ's ascension to heaven. The A.V. '■speedily was he taken away' seems merely iritended to express the notion of suddenness contained in ijpTrdyi;. Cf. Acts 8®, irveviui Kvpwv rjpTraa-ev top ^iKimrov. S>^ translates ^117, 'before that.' Gregg holds that Enoch is not the person referred to : ' the righteous man of v. ' is still the subject, his death being spoken of in terms used to recount the translation of Enoch, a typical instance.' He would therefore render fiereHSt] not ' was translated ' but ' was transferred,' i.e. killed and received into a happier state. 12. fiaa-Kavia is exactly the Latin ' fascinatio,' and the verb is found, spoken of the evil eye, in Deut. 28 5*. ^aa-KaveX rm 69aKijxo avrov TOP dSe'\v oCpdaXfim. Cf. Prov. 23 ", /it) a-vvSeiirvei dvSpl ^acrKava. In a modified sense Gal. 3 ', tU vfias e^da-KavfVj- 5L renders 'fascinatio nugacitatis,' which again requires A Lapide's note; 'malitia nugax, h.e. nugis suis illiciens.' There is no occasion for any such unusual word to explain (jjavKorrji, which is simply 'badness,' 'wickedness.' Two senses are possible for the end of the line, according as we 4. 12.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 145 interpret ra KaXa of 'things good' generally or 'the good qualities of the human soul.' In the first case ajiavpol means that the bright fascinations of evil throw the duller virtues into the shade. In the second, it has the force of 'bedim' (R.V.), 'corrupt' even. Grimm quotes Pythagoras in Stob. Floril. 18, TiQvavai n-oXX^ Kpivrrov t\ St' aKpafrlav Trjv ^jrvx^jv afiavpaxrai. 'Vfjx^aa-fios is a word invented by the author ; ' a powerful but strange word' (Farrar). It seems to be an illegitimate formation from pc'/i^o/ioi, ' to gad about,' as in Prov. 7 '2, of the harlot. 'Pc^jSafm, which might justify such a form, does not exist, and the word seems rather a proof of the author's ignorance of Greek than of his deep knowledge of it. As used in M. Aurel., ii. 7, a-xo^rjv wapfxe (r^avTw . . . KoX iravcrai pep^6p.ivos, and in the Orac. Sibyll. (quoted by Deane), it means nothing more than 'wander restlessly about,' as does pefi^eiew in Isa. 23 '". pep^ds, which occijrs in some MSS. of Ecclus. 26 ^, is not used, as Farrar says, of an intoxicated woman, but of yvvT] p.e6v(ros — a very different thing ; and A. V. rightly translates it there ' a gadder abroad.' There would appear to be no justification for translating pep^opai as anything else but 'to wander,' and so far A.V. and IL. (' inconstantia concupiscentiae') seem right; but Pseudo-Solomon may have thought that 'whirling about' was a meaning which he could attach to pep^aa-pos ; and the above transla- tion represents such a sense. It is only with this interpretation that the passage of Seneca, de Vita Beata, 28, is applicable : 'nonne turbo quidam animos vestros rotat et involvit fugientes petentesque eadem?' '¥ep^av means not 'a top' but 'a sling.' S)^ has fjOX£3, ' a dazzling ' for pep^aa-pos. peraWciei is an obvious blunder for peTaWda-a-ei. It means ' digs for metals,' and is repeated in its false sense in 16 ^j^., 17 ktIo-is . . . els irdvTa peToKkevopevrj. If it were not for this second convicting passage the commentators would have explained the blunder away. 3L has ' transvertit,' which A.V. most ingeniously parallels by 'under- mines.' A Lap., ' sicut fossores fodiendo e terrae visceribus eruunt . . . metalla ; sic concupiscentia e visceribus mentis effodit et ex- haurit omnem sensum.' Two other editors (Hasse and Heydenreich, quoted by Grimm) translated 'melt down,' and Grabe proposed to read — without the slightest MS. authority — peraXXoiovv. The render- ing of peraWeieiv : p€ra(f>€pei.v, in Suidas, seems to be taken from these two passages of Wisdom. The anxiety of commentators to defend the qualifications of Pseudo-Solomon as a Greek scholar is proved by Gregg's suggestion that ' papyri yet to be discovered may prove this to have been a popular Alexandrian use.' Cornely even (p. 161) was inclined to fall into this snare ; but his editor, Zorell, will have none of it. He remarks that ' peToKXdcra-eiv does occur repeatedly in the papyri with the meaning " to change," perahX^veiv never ' ; which seems decisive. The mistake must be simply recognised, as possibly in the case of K 146 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [4. 13. 14- 13. He being perfected in brief space fulfilled long times ; 14. For his soul was well-pleasing to God, Therefore hastened he him away from the midst of wickedness. waxvTi (5 "), as an instance of the author's imperfect knowledge of Greek. A parallel is afforded by Mark I2'*, where Ke(f>a\aioiv , meaning properly ' to sum up,' is used for ' to wound in the head ' ; but St. Mark is also a Hellenistic Jew. For the general sense of the passage it is hardly necessary to quote Menander's ' evil communications corrupt good manners,' i Cor. 15 ^\ Scarcely less known is Theognis 355 : eaOXav fi€v yap air' eV^Xd ^aSrja-eai ' fjv 5e kclkolo'I (TU/x/AtVyj^s, diToXeii Kat tqv eovra voov. Churton remarks that the passage may be regarded as a paraphrase on Isa. 57 ', ' the righteous is taken away from the evil to come,' or (ffi) 'from the presence of iniquity'; probably Pseudo-Solomon took the latter interpretation, and there is no occasion to suppose with Farrar that he misunderstood the text. 13. An idiomatic English translation is almost impossible (R.V. 'long years ' is not satisfactory), but the sense is plain enough. His moral training was completed early in life, and his few years were as good as very many. Cf. Seneca, Epp. 93, ' Longa est vita si plena est ; impletur autem quum animus sibi bonum suum reddidit et ad se potestatem sui transtulit.' TeXeiadeis is not ' dead ' as some older editors supposed. Cf. Hooker on the early death of Edward vi. {£ccL Pol., iv. xiv. 7), who renders : 'though he departed this world soon, yet fulfilled he much time.' It obviously implies completion in contrast to T€Kva /xoip^mi/ arkXetTTa (3^^), KKSives aTeXfcTToi (4^), and is said to have been used in con- nection with the Greek mysteries. The verb is used in the sense of ',to perfect' in Ecclus. 7'\ Phil. 3 "^ oix on rj&r) cXa/Sox 17 ijbr) rerfXeiafiai. Heb. 5 ^, lo '*, jiia yap npoa-^opa T£Tf\eiasKfv els to ^LrjveKes rovs dyta^op,evovs. Grimm quotes Philo, Z«§-^. Alleg., ii. § 23, £ -^vxh ■ ■ • orav Te\eca>6^s Kal ISpa^etwv Kai are^avrnv d^iadfjs, and e/e Somn., L § 21, ^v^rj . . . reX«ta)^ei(ra eV aperati' affXoLS. irXrjpovv xpovov is a Hellenistic expression. Ecclus. 26 ^, to. ern avTov n\rjpa>o-ei. Jos., Antt, IV. iv. 6. In Latin we have 'implere annum sexagesimum,' etc. Tibull., i. iii. 53, 'fatales explevimus annos.' Hor., Ep., 1. xx. 27, 'Me quater undenos sciat implevisse Decembres.' Of the various parallels quoted, the closest seems to be in Ambros. De Obitu Theod. : ' perfecta est aetas ubi perfecta est virtus.' 14. The R.V. 'hasted he out of the midst of wickedness ' spoils the whole passage : if it was Enoch himself who voluntarily left the world 4. i;.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 147 15. But the nations seeing and not understanding, Nor taking such a happening to heart, That grace and mercy are with his chosen, And his visitation with his holy ones : — how is his leaving the world a sign of God's favour ? A modification of this view is adopted by Grimm ; ' His soul hastened away,' which he endeavours to bring into harmony with line i thus, 'his early removal was in accordance with the wish of his soul, which joyfully hastened to obey God's call ' — an obviously tame explanation. There is no difficulty in using a-irevSai transitively of things, but no example of its use with a person as object seems to exist elsewhere. Cf. Lidd. and Sc. s.v. It seems better to adhere to the traditional translation. iL 'pro- peravit educere ilium,' which is supported by the patristic authorities cited by Sabatier. With this interpretation agree Nannius, Junius Lorinus, A Lapide, and the Zurich Bible, as also Luther and Grotius. Nannius, quoted by Grimm, would read ea-Traa-fv, and S^ simply says 'he took him away.' Siegfried thinks the construction imitated from that of the Hebrew "iriD with the accus. as in Gen. 18^, 'make ready quickly'; i Kings 22°, 'Fetch quickly (mriD) Micaiah the son of Imlah.' For the general idea underlying the passage we have as parallels Aeschin., C. Axioch. C. 9, oi. deal , . . oiis &v itXeiotoO Troimj/rai, BaXTOv aTraWaTTovTi tov (fjv. Menander, 425, o" yop Seol (j>iXov and cf. Ps. 2 \ It is usually understood here, however, of the Gentiles, among whom the renegade Jews were reckoned. All I4S THE BOOK OF WISDOM T4. i6- i6. But the just man when dead shall condemn the impious that are alive, And youth soon perfected the old age of the unrighteous man, though rich in years. reference to the people actually existing in the time of Enoch seems to have been tacitly dropped. Gregg's emendation of ol Se avofioi for oi Se \aol would certainly simplify matters, but it altogether lacks support. He argues as follows : V. " of the text shows the word that is required, ' the ungodly.' ffi-'^ has the variant reading aWoi, which probably conceals avofioi, ' lawless,' a very simple uncial confusion. "Ai/o^ot serves as a substitute for dcre/Saf, the keyword required for the beginning of the new section. 'Aco/xoi is found in 4 1^, and in this section it is echoed in dvofiTiiiaTa (4 ^'') and dvofiias (5 "). No doubt the reading of Svofioi. would remove the necessity for the insertion of ' the ungodly ' by R. V. in v. ", but it may be questioned whether aXKoi and avojioi could be easily confused in an uncial MS. Such conjectures, if they are merely intended to remove the blame of an anacoluthon from the text of a writer like Pseudo-Solomon, are superfluous. The clause ' Grace and mercy . . . holy ones,' occurs entire in 3 ", according to many MSS., cf. note there. The indefinite word 'visita- tion' is retained as the translation of eVto-KOTrij, because of the various forces both of the word itself and of the Hebrew npa which it represents, e.g. in Isa. 10^ we have an ill mean- ing; but in Ruth i^ TpQ 'the Lord had visited His people (circ'o-KCTrrai Kvpios top Xaov avTov) to give them bread.' No doubt this is the force here, but it is difficult to express it in one English word (? ' protection '). The cxXeKi-oi occur in Tobit 8 '^, i Chron. 16 *', 2 Mace. 1 2^ Margoliouth cites the Armenian version 'justice is upon his saints,' which he thinks represents the original Hebrew text. Certainly devT€s in\ Biavola exactly represents the Hebrew 2?~?V Dib in Isa. 57 ', (none) ' layeth it to heart.' (ffi- has ovdds ixSixerai rf/ Kapbia, which is inexact). S*" for iJ-rfSi 64vTes eVi biavoia T& toiovto ; ' not thinking that it was like this.' 16. Si^ (the Arabic is hopelessly confused with v. ^'') presents a most extraordinary variation : the literal translation of it is, ' He shall judge (or judgeth) the righteous and destroy the wicked aKve ; and youths who go forth for a brief time more than the long time of old men of falsehood.' The first clause is exphcable. AiVacos is mis- taken for the object, and Kafxav for some verb meaning 'destroy' ; 4. 17.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 149 17. For they shall see the wise man's end, And shall not understand what the Lord purposed con- cerning him, Nor for what end he took him into safety. but the second part is a mystery. It might seem as if the translator had a different text before him, and this, coupled with the unhellen- istic Kafiav, the use of Tc^io-Bnaa immediately after TeXcimdelcra, and the indefiniteness of Km-aKptvei, which seem to indicate the hand of a later writer, appears to be in favour of the theory put forward in the notes on v. "', that the text has been tampered with. Bois, Essai, 387, recognises this, but tries to remedy it by removing v. i» to the middle of chap. 3, and putting v. "'' at the beginning of v. \ KOfiovTes or KeKixrjKOTes 'those whose sufferings are over,' or as &^ slavishly, ' he that is weary,' is a purely classical expression for ' the dead' found in Homer, and never elsewhere in ffi. Quite naturally the copyists substituted davav, which they understood, and this found its way into the best MSS. and into Ephrem Syrus (quoted by Deane). But ffi^N retained Kafimv, and it is generally read, as the ' difficilior lectio.' IL may have read either. KoTaKpij/ci presents a difficulty. It may refer (l) to condemnation in a future existence ; but (mvras is against this : (2) to the moral shaming of the wicked that remain behind ; but this, says Grimm, would be expressed by ekey^a : (3) to a figurative condemnation, as in Heb. 11'', 'Noah condemned ihe world'; Rom. 2" (La must of necessity be just, but it adds to our doubts as to v. '^ to find the same person (presumably) described by two different epithets in two succeeding verses. r]avUTl^!]Tc. remarks that the line is an adaptation of Ps. 37 '^ and accepting cither the colourless rendering of Deane above given, or the still weaker expUination of Grimm, 'after the wicked have ceased to despise,' says that 'the verse evidently points to a retribution beginning on earth.' We nia)- ask whether the wicked are to become 'carcases' and 'a reproach among the dead for c\er' while still on earth, and how they can while still on earth speak of their life and death as things past and over (5"'"). Cornely, who ex|ilains V. 'decidentcs' as caused by a mistraiis- l.ition of fViirrat tis- jrruYui, as if it meant 'erunt in casum,' an idea supported by S'', which, as already stated, has 'a fall,' and not a 'carcase,' \er)- properly argues that ^itrc'i tovto means something after this life, and that this idea is supported b)- the promise of the eternal punishment of the wicked. 5. I. A better example of a /xir/i />r/s in ciiticism can hardly be found than the remark of Reuss on this passage. ' One might conclude that this was a representation of the Last Judgment, as the Jewish theologians contemporary with our Lord repicsented it. But as this idea does not occur elsewhere, we may be satisfied to sec here a poetic tableau of the late repentance of the sinner.' Similarly (.".rimm speaks of all this as a 'dramatic representation' of the conviction of the impious and their recognition of God's judgment of them and of the righteous. One would have thought that a scene to whicli a writer devoted twenty-six verses 1,4 "^-5 '-'\ coupled with his constant references to fn-Kr/conr) and >)ii(pa Siayvwirt^s, might be considered to form an integral part of his belief, if he has any at all. It would be just as easy to explain away the description of the Judgment in Matt 25''*^' as a 'poetic tableau,' a 'dramatic representation' ; on the ground that nowhere else do we ha\ e in the Gospels so full a depiction. St. Augustine at least refers the passage to the Judgment t\ OaitJ., i. 38, etc Farrar goes a step further than Grimm. For him all this is the dramatic illustration of the eternal principle which has found expres- sion in so many proverbs : ' Magna est Veritas et praevalebit.' Grimm 154 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [5. 2. 3. 2. Seeing, they shall be dismayed with terrible fear, And shall be astounded at the unexpectedness of his deliverance. 3. They shall say within themselves, changing their view, Yea and shall groan for oppression of spirit. This was he whom we held for our laughing-stock And for a byword of reproach, we fools. remarks that ' rational preachers use the orthodox expectation of a visible judgment to clothe and illustrate the idea of future eternal reward.' He is rightly rebuked by Cornely. The text needs little comment. Tvappr^a-ia is well illustrated by Prov. 13 ^, dcre^fjs alcrxvveTm Koi uvx e|€t irapprfcriav. There is a clirious change of tense in lines 2 and 3, explained by the fact that BXi'^avTav refers to the actions of the ungodly in past time, aderovvTav to their habitual contempt for the painful life of the righteous. Cf Enoch 103 ^ sff., ' Say not of the just and good whose life is over : in the days of their life they plagued themselves with toilsome labour and underwent all kinds of hardships. . . . They accomplished and attained not the least thing ; they were tormented and destroyed and had no hope,' etc. 3L most inexplicably translates ddcrovvTcov 'qui abstulerunt labores eorum.' &^ nKn\ ^ may mean ' plunder,' or ' defraud.' ' Labours ' is not expressed in that version. B^ has also ' oppress.' 2. There is no occasion to supply either 'him' or 'it' with iSoj/res. ' Beholding the scene ' is the meaning. Nor need we add ' God's salvation ' (.R. V.) ; if anything is supplied it should be (with ffi'*) avroO. The revisers apparently considered that o-arTjpia could not mean ' the rescue of a man ' (for many examples of which cf Liddell and Scott S.V.). ' God's salvation ' would be the more unclassical of the two renderings. The word irapdSo^ov (rijr a-ioTtjplas) betrayed the A.V. into unusual and unneeded prolixity, 'his salvation, so far beyond all that they looked for.' Deane suggests a rather curious rendering, 'the unlooked-for allotment of happiness.' For TTapd&o^ov we have again a strange word, 'subitatio,' in IL. If it be true that that version was of African origin (cf. Introduction on the Versions), we have an explanation of the use of many such words as this, which occur elsewhere only in the African writers. There is, however, an explanation of this to be found in the fact that practically all the Latin writers whose works we possess, of the period to which we attribute the Old Latin, were African. It must be remembered that Jerome did not revise the translation of Wisdom. It is much older than his time. 3. cV iavTols may, as in 2 ', be either ' one with another ' or ' in them- 5. 4- 5 ] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 155 4. We accounted his life madness, And his end unhonoured. 5. How was he reckoned among the sons of God And his portion is among the saints ! selves.' The point is unimportant. To attach any theological import- ance to ixeravoovvTes as denoting the possibility of repentance beyond the grave would of course be absurd, and we need not do so ; for fifTavooivTes probably has its original meaning of a change of opinion. It is true, however, that Athan., Serni. Mag. de Fide, 28 (quoted by Deane), who applies the whole passage to the judgment of Christ, uses /xera/ifXo/icvoi (the word used of Judas in Matt. 27 ^) ovnep iv r^ Kpiaei opoiVTes Kpivovra ^oivras Koi v^Kpoiis . , . perapcXopepot ipoviTiv, oiros rfv ov e(T)(op,ev Trore els yeXara. &^ has also 'repenting.' (TTevoxfopia irveifiaTos seems to have also a physical significance. 3L ' prae angustia spiritus,' they are ' choked ' with confusion ; they cannot speak ; they can only groan. It is characteristic of 'Wisdom' that they speak all the same. The best illustration of the bodily meaning is in 4 Mace. 1 1 ^^, to irvevfia aTevo^apoviievos Kai to a-oip-a dyxopevos, which Deissmann translates ' with breath oppressed and body suffocating.' In the New Testament it seems to be invariably coupled with 6\i\l/is, and therefore to have lost the physical meaning : Rom. 2 ^ 8 2^, 2 Cor. 6 *. For els Trapa^oXfjv 6vei.hicrp.ov IL has 'in similitudinem improperii,' which is simply a mistranslation. No 'parable' is meant, but a 'byword.' Ps. 44'°, e6ov rjpas els 7rapa^o\r]V e'v Toif eSveau Cf. 68'^. Jer. 24 ^, eaovTat els oveidiapov Koi els irapa^oXi^v, Cf. 2 Chron. 7 ^^• Tobit 3 *, Tvapa^oXfi ovet&Lo-pov. For Trapa^oXr) meaning a ' proverb,' see Luke 4 ^^, epelTe pot Trjv Trapa^oXrjv TavTrju 'laTpe, depd-rrevaov a-eavTov. oi aippoves seems properly joined by Swete to the end of this verse. Siegfried follows him. 4. The charge of 'madness' is brought against Christ himself, Mark 3 ^', e^rjkBov KpaTrjcrai avTov, eXeyov yap otl e^ecTTr], John 7 2°, dneKpldr) 6 o'xXoj AmfiovLov exeis, cf. 8 '''■^^, lO 2" ; i Cor. 4 '", fjpe'is pa>po\ Sid ;^;pif7i-ov. The word paivopm itself is only used in Acts 26 24 (Agrippa's scoff at St. Paul). Deane quotes (as does Hooker, Ercl. Pol. Pre/., iii. 14) Merc. Trism., ad Aesctdap., xv. 43, oi e'v yvoxreL ovTes oihe toIs ttoXXois dpeo-tfovai, ovTe ot jroXXot avroiy, peprjvevai de doKoiio't KOt yeXtoTa oK^XiirKdvovcn. 5. The sons of God are by some taken to mean ' the angels,' as in Job I ^ 2 ', and the well-known passage 38 ', ' All the sons of God shouted for joy.' (ffi translates 'angels' in all cases.) Cf Enoch IC4 *, 'Ye (the righteous) shall have great joy like the angels of heaven.' But in Hos. i '", ' the sons of the living God ' are the re- 156 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [5. 6. 6. We then erred from the path of truth, And the light of righteousness shone not upon us, Yea and the sun rose not for us. pentant folk of Israel, and the meaning here may be ' saints ' generally. In Wisd. i8'^ a rather different meaning is evident. 'They con- fessed the people to be God's sons,' i.e. the chosen people of God on earth. C£ notes ad loc. KKr^ftov is most indefinite. It may mean 'lot,' 'portion,' 'inherit- ance.' In 3 '* it means the inheritance of the eunuch hereafter ; and so in Col. I '"', ci'y njv /icpiSa tov kXtjpov tS)V dyiav iv rio Ti. A curious parallel is afforded by Acts 26 '*, tov 'Ka^elv avrovs a(j)icnv ijiapTiajv Koi Kkrfpov iv Tols Jjyiaaixivois wia-T€i ttj els €p,e. Cf. Dan. 1 2 '^, avaarrftrr) €is rbv Kkrjpov aov els (TVVTekeiav rifiepSiv, where ffi, how- ever, has fTri Trjv So^av (tov. 6. "Apa is common enough in New Testament Greek at the beginning of a sentence, though not in the classical writers. But it may be well conceded that what goes before — surprise at the good fortune of the righteous — takes the place of the protasis of a sentence : apa is thus conclusive ; ' so then after all it is we who were wrong.' IL 'ergo.' R.V. 'verily' is both meaningless and incorrect. ' The path of truth ' is a natural metaphor ; ' the way which corre- sponds to true religion,' and, in the Jew's eyes, to all ceremonial observance. The exact phrase is found in 2 Pet. 2 '■', Si' oiis ij 6S6s ttjs akrideias ^\aa-(l>r)pr)dr)iTeTm. For its opposite cf 12^*, ohos nXdvrjs. 'The way,' with Christian writers, had a technical sense, 'the religion,' as the latter phrase was used among the Huguenots of France. Cf Acts 9 ^. 'The light of righteousness' is another natural similitude. Cf. 2 Sam. 22 2', (TV 6 Xv^vos pov, Kvpu. John 12^^, nepijraTelTe i>s to (pais ex^Te. 2 Cor. 4 ^. The sun (of righteousness) has the same meaning, rijr biKaioa-vvrfs being actually supplied by one version of IL Armenian (?) and Compl. which A. V. of course follows. The words are apparently a reminiscence of Mai. 4 ^, dfareXei iipXv . . . rj'Kios hiKmoa-vvrjs, but here they seem to be an interpolation. A few MSS. have them. The expression 'sun of righteousness' has often been supposed to refer propheti- cally to Christ. The dogmatic meaning of the passage, if it has any, is most obscure. Had the words been put into the mouth of heathen they would have been intelligible ; but these are Jews, who had enjoyed all the advantages of the Jewish education and the covenanted mercies of God. The text can only mean that they had not been prepared to receive or assimilate such education, being blinded by sensual pleasure. Cf Isa. 26 ", ' Lord, Thy hand is lifted up, yet they see not,' etc. St. Aug., Serm., ccxcii. 4, ' lUis non est ortus Chri'stus, 5. 7. 8.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 157 7. We were surfeited with the ways of lawlessness and de- struction, Yea and traversed pathless deserts, But the way of the Lord we knew not. 8. What profited us our overweening pride ? What did riches with boasting help us ? a quibus non est agnitus Christus,' which may well be paraphrased. ' Our wilful ignorance was a darkness, upon which the sun has not risen.' 7. The difficulty in line i is caused chiefly by the order of the words, rather than by the mixture of metaphor. dvo/iias ivfirXijaB-qixev certainly looks as if it meant ' we were surfeited with lawlessness,' and as if Tpifiois had been an afterthought. But there is no variation in the MSS., and it is better to translate the text as it stands than either to accept conjectures like (veirkixBmxev or evenXdyxBrnitv (from e'/xjrXafecr^m, to wander about), or to suppose a mixture of construc- tions, avofiias iven'Kr](T6r]jiev and ivenopei6t]fiev rpiPois aTrcaXelas (though the latter is possible). The matter is complicated by the iL reading ' lassati sumus.' Bretschneider (Diss., i. p. 32), adhering to his idea of a Hebrew original, supposes a misreading of !|3t<7D3 'we were filled,' for !13*X73 ' we were wearied.' The A. V. virtually follows iL. Cf Isa. 57 '", 'Thou art wearied in the greatness of thy way.' But accepting the usual reading, we must construe eveTrXrjarSrifiev with rpi^ois and not with avoplas as Grimm, who translates t/ji'/Sois separately 'on paths,' which is not classical Greek, and hardly Hellenistic. Cf Winer (ed. Moulton), p. 274. For the 'way of destruction ' cf. Matt. 7 '^ eipvxa>pos r] 686s fj dirdyovira els tjji/ diraXfLav. The idea in 'pathless deserts' is that of Isa. 53*, 'AH we like sheep have gone astray ; we have turned every one to his own way.' epr]p.oL a^aToi is used in a rather different sense in Jer. 12 '" of fertile land converted into a desert. IL has 'vias difficiles,' for which no real explanation is forthcoming. 'We knew not' really bears the sense of 'we ignored,' for the same remarks apply here as in v ^. 8. dXafoveia is glorification of oneself; i7repr)(j)avia contempt for others. The latter substantive is only found once in the New Testa- ment (Mark 7 '^), but the corresponding adjective five times. In the Apocrypha its worst sense is given by its application to the people of Sodom. Ecclus. 16 ° and 3 Mace. 2 K IL ' divitiarum jactantia ' gives the sense but not the translation of jrXoiJTor juer' aXafdi/ttas. S^ has 'inhabitation of pride,' using the 158 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [5. 9- lO- 9. All those things are passed away as a shadow, Yea like a message that hurrieth by : 10. As a ship that passeth through the billowy waves, Of which having passed it is not possible to find a trace. Nor the track of her keel in the waves : same word for oKa^oveia as for iwepj](l)apta. It is impossible to con- jecture what the translator may have read. For crujii/3aXXo/iai, 'to assist,' many classical examples can be adduced, and from the New Testament, Acts 18 ^'■, os jrapayevoiKvos avve^dXeTO ttoKv rot? Treino-TevKOO'iv. 9. The meaning of dyyeXia is ambiguous, as is the Latin ' nuntius ' and the English (A. V.) 'post.' The rendering 'message' preserves this indefiniteness, but it is highly probable that the abstract is used for the concrete, and that 'messenger' is meant. Cf Job 9^°, 'My days are swifter than a post.' Such concrete use is said to be unprecedented, but anything is better than to translate with Grimm and Siegfried, ' a rumour that hurrieth past.' The image of ' Fama volans' in Virg., Aen., iv. 172, is very well as a piece of rhetorical personification, but the notion of a single rumour ' hurrying past ' is grotesque. So, however, &^ S^ have ' a message of a runner.' 10. For 'it is not possible to find' (ovk ecrnv eipelv) R.V. and A.V. alike translate ' is not to be found,' ' cannot be found,' and Grimm supports this, remarking that the German idiom is the same. In line 2 the rendering is possible, but the accusative arpanhv in line 3 makes it absolutely ungrammatical.. IL translates correctly, ' non est in venire vestigium,' and Deane and Siegfried also give the accurate construction. It is possible that ^? Sia^da-rjs may be a genitive absolute, and A.V. seems to take it so, rendering ' which when it is gone by.' TpoTTios is the epic form of the genitive. 'Wisdom ' is eclectic in his Greek, as were the New Testament writers, cf. Winer (Moulton), pp. 22-24. One or two MSS. give the Attic form Tponiats and the Compl. nopeias, which for once the A.V. does not follow. .S*" and &^ both have ' path,' not understanding the word. The metaphor of the ship may be derived from Prov. 30 ^^, where one of the four ' wonderful things ' is ' the way of a ship in the midst of the sea.' Grimm notes the fondness of Hellenistic writers for metaphors taken from those nautical matters with which the older Jews were so little acquainted. He cites 14 ^ jyy. ; Prov. 23^*, 'He that lieth on the top of a mast' ; Ecclus. 36 ^ (33 ^), 43 ^4 ; Enoch loi * sff. ; but omits James 3 *, ' Behold, the ships also, though they are so great . . . are yet turned about by a very small rudder.' 5. II.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 159 1 1. Or as of a bird that flieth through the air No token of passage is found ; But the Ught wind being whipped by the beating of her pinions, And divided by the force of her rushing, Was traversed as her wings moved. And thereafter was found no sign of her going in it ; II. Here both R.V. and A.V. translate as a genitive absolute 6pv4ov SurrravTos (Swete), but others read SianraiTor. The variation was known to A.V. But the existence of SmnTavros is questioned, the verb being SiivTaij.ai. This, however, renders the reading ' difficihor,' and therefore 'potior.' IL's rendering is in defiance of all grammar, 'nullum invenitur argumentum itineris (which is good) sed tantum sonitus alarum verberans levem ventum et scindens per vim itineris aerem.' fiacTTL^oiievov and (rxi^Cofievov are taken as actives, and irvev/ia Kovffiov as an accusative. Of ' aerem ' no trace is to be found in the Greek. The aorists are not to be taken as presents (R.V.) to which evpia-- Kfrat seems to point, but represent often-recurring events, of which one concrete example (in the past) is taken. So James i ^', avireiXev 6 rJXioi (TVV Ty Kavacovt Koi e^rjpavev rbv ^oprov. (Cf., however, ^ of Isa. 40'.) Deane thinks they represent the rapidity of the actions described, but the common idea of the 'gnomic' aorist will meet the case. Grimm points out that we have here a very apt metaphor, the life of the wicked having been accompanied with noise and tumult {ayepioxia, 2^) while they were alive : and Farrar is wrong in saying that the whole gist of the comparison lies in the first line. It is this only which is illustrated by Virg., Georg., i. 409, 'ilia levem fugiens raptim secat aethera pennis.' The point is in the utter disappearance of all token of a course which made a noise, cf. Virg., Aen., v. 215: (Columba) fertur in arva volans, plausumque exterrita pennis Dat tecto ingentem ; mox aere lapsa quieto Radit iter liquidum, celeres neque commovet alas.' So Shelley, Prom. Unbound, Act i., ' On swift still wings glide down the atmosphere.' For paa-Ti,C6p,evov the Armenian (Margoliouth, 0^. cit, p. 84) has ' tear- ing' (?torn), and S'' uses 'j). (to 'tear') twice, as equivalent both to fiaart^opevov and to crx'foMf'""' ^'? pol^ov. S*" translates 'blowing of a storm,' and renders {nvevpa} Kovcpov, ' swift.' Zockler ad lac. compares not ineptly the famous story in Bede of the flight of the bird through the king's banqueting-hall from door to door, and the apologue of human life founded thereon. i6o THE BOOK OF WISDOM [5. 12. 13. 1 2. Or as when an arrow is shot at a mark, The air being cleft immediately returned into itself again, So that its path is not to be recognised. 13, So also we being born ceased to be, Yea, and had no token of virtue to show. But in our wickedness were quite consumed. 12. Here there is no ambiguity about the genitive absolute. The difficulty is with aviki6rf, for which various substitutes are suggested, e.g. ave\r]\v6e (which is attractive), avriXvde, and even ave^\ 'Their years did he consume away in vanity.' (S i^eXmov iv /xaraiori/Ti ai Tjfjiipai airmv. At the end of the verse % adds, ' Talia dixerunt in inferno hi qui peccaverunt,' for which there is no external support whatever, and which seems obviously a marginal note that has crept into the text. 5. 14.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM i6i 14. For the hope of the impious man is as chaff borne away by the wind, Yea, as thin rime that is chased away by a storm. And as smoke by the wind was it scattered, And as the remembrance of a guest that tarried but a day it passed. Farrar for some reason separates ' in inferno ' as ' unauthorised ' from the rest of the sentence. Reuss' terse French excellently expresses the sense of the passage, ' La vie du mechant semble n'avoir que deux moments ; celui de la naissance et celui de la mort ; dans le trajet il n'y a rien qui vaille. Le mechant est consume dans sa m^cliancete. 11 y est comme absorbe ; il s'y fond ; il n'est rien hors de \k.' 14. Some critics, as Siegfried, would make this verse a part of the speech of the sinners, but this is unlikely. They could hardly be supposed to speak of themselves as ' impious.' It is difficult to discover what authority the 'received' reading XoCy in line I possesses. Yet the A. V. follows it ; ' like dust that is blown away by the wind,' and so &^. XvoOs, 'chaff,' 'down,' A.V. marg. 'thistledown,' IL 'lanugo,' is the more difficult reading ; the word is often confused with x°'"'- (Trommius cites the Greek of Ps. 7', 17^, 21 '^-2', etc.) It occurs repeatedly in ffi, Ps. 1*, 6 ^vois ov iKplnrei avefios ; 35 ^ mo-fi xvovs Kara Trpoa'aTrov dve[j.ov ; Isa. 17^^, iroppco avTov biw^erai ojff ;^voi}i/ a^vpov XiKfiavToiv arrfvavTi, dve/iov, 29'; Hos. 13^ These passages seem to establish x""^' as the true reading. vaxvi) (rime) presents a fresh difficulty. Hoar-frost is not 'chased away by a storm.' axvr], 'foam,' which is not much more appropriate, is read by a few MSS. S^, IL also have 'foam.' Arab, 'husk.' S*" has here ' dust,' but evidently read for KaTrvor, apaxvri (spider's web), which appears in some MSS. for naxvrf. This reading is not to be despised. It occurs in good MSS., and in & of Job 8 '* (doiVi/ros airoO etrrat 6 olkos, dpdxvrj de aiiTov diro^rj(reTaL f] (tktjvt)) we find it in the verse immediately succeeding ' the hope of the ungodly shall perish.' Gregg quotes to support it <& of Job 27^' and of Ps. go', and Sura 29 * of the Koran ; ' The likeness of those who take to themselves patrons besides God is as the likeness of the spider who taketh to herself a house ; and verily the frailest of houses is the spider's house.' It is possible that some copyist in the earliest times did not know that dpdxvrj might mean a spider's web as well as a spider, and so altered it into Trdxvr) or axvrj. It is remarkable to find Farrar, who in his Introduction is never tired of praising Pseudo-Solomon as a master of Greek, here admitting the truth — that he is dealing with a foreign and imperfectly known language. Kairvos is plain enough, but the A.V. margin suggests 'chaff,' i62 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [5. IS- i6. 15. But the righteous live for ever, And their reward is in the Lord, Yea, and the care of them with the most High. 1 6. Therefore shall they receive the kingdom of splendour, And the diadem of beauty from the Lord's hand ; For with his right hand shall he cover them, And with his arm shall he shield them. apparently with reference to Hos. 13^, where chaff and smoke are connected. KaraXirt]! (a guest at an inn) and ixovor^jxepos are both rare. The latter occurs only in the Batracho-myomachia, and there in a different sense, 'finished in a day.' 'Wisdom' probably misunderstood it. Cf. Omar Khayyam's Life is a tent wherein one night doth rest A sultan to the realms of death addrest. The sultan rises, and the dark Ferrash Strikes, and prepares it for another guest. 15. If (acn be taken in the sense merely of ' continued existence,' it would seem to imply the annihilation of the unrighteous ; but Grimm, who insists upon the latter doctrine, insists also here on the meaning 'blest existence.' Indeed he could not do otherwise in the face of John 6*', 6 rpayatv jxe Ka/cavos f7)(rei 81' ijJ-i ; I John 4", tov viov . . . aT7€(TTCLKK5v 6 ^60? ei? TOV KotTfiov Lva ^jjcTw/igy 5t' avTov. ^^ and 5^ have both ' shall live,' and Arab. also. % ' in perpetuum vivent.' Bret- schneider thinks ^aE^'^D, 'care,' is a misreading for naB'lD, 'rest.' But this fem. form never occurs, nor is the masc. 3B>id the word which would be used in such a sense. €if alava here /in/s/ be translated 'for ever' (cf notes on 4^), as in I John 2 ", 6 iroiav t6 BeXrjfia tov 6eov fnivet fls tov alava; Ecclus. 4I '^, ayadov ovojxa ei? aloiva Sta/xevet. Not much is to be gained by discussing the precise force of iv Kvpiio. For the varieties of meaning of which it is capable, cf. Winer (ed. Moulton), p. 486. That it means 'with the Lord' is not, as Deane says, more likely because of the next line : rather the con- trary. Grimm's rendering is peculiar, 'their reward consists in the possession of the Lord.' 16. A curious variant occurs in the Arm. (Margoliouth, op. df., p. 285) and Coptic, tov /3aa-iXciov ttjv fvwpeirciav for 'the kingdom of splendour.' Marg:oliouth thinks a Hebrew original nai^D INS 'a royal crown,' is indicated. 'Kingdom of splendour,' 'diadein of beauty,' might well be considered Hebraisms, but whether from such influence or not, 'genitives of quality' are frequent in New Testament Greek, cf. Winer (ed. Moulton), pp. 40, 297. 5. 17-] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 163 17. He shall take his jealousy as complete armour, And make all creation his weapons for the repulse of his foes. ^aa-iXeiov is variously translated ' crown ' (unlikely considering the next line) and ' palace.' But as in I ", ' kingdom ' seems the right rendering, 'regnum decoris' IL, 'a fair kingdom' &^. Aiu8i)/xa is the oriental form of crown, ' a band of purple silk sewn with pearls' (Farrar). Such a reward, as Deane remarks, shows a distinct advance on the carnal Jewish views of the reward of the righteous, with its ' feast on Leviathan ' and the like. For inepaa-inu cf. Ps. 18^, where fflt has for 'shield' vnepaa-n-ia-Tris. &^ I^CQJ which appears to refer more to a helmet than a shield. Cf &^ of Ephes. 6 '", which has IIJOJ-TD for 'a helmet.' The critics as usual take immense trouble to prove that whate\er else is referred to here, it cannot be the Final Judgment. Grimm summarises the opinions of his predecessors (i) that the whole is merely figurative (cf. notes on v. ') ; (2) that the picture is ' mytho- logical-eschatological' — a fanciful representation of the prophesied rule of God on earth — the ' Day of the Lord,' to use the indefinite term so often used by the prophets ; (3) that a real Messianic rule (with- out a Messiah) is meant, in which God is to crush all his enemies on earth and reward the saints. To the last of these opinions Grimm adheres, chiefly on account of the expression (v. ^*) eprjiiaxrei . . . Bpovovs 8vvaa-TS>p, which he thinks must refer to an earthly happen- ing — a concrete victory. Reuss also thinks that an earthly victory is meant, but he founds his opinion on the idea that the theory of a 'jugement d'outre-tombe ' was still in process of formation ; which is hardly true of the time of Caligula. 17. For the correspondence between this passage (i"-2c) and Eph. 6 ^^'" (and their divergences) cf. the full discussion in Additional Note C. It may suffice to say that both passages appear to have been independently inspired by Isa. 59 ''. The same may be said of I Thess. S ^. The idea of God as a ' man of war ' is common enough. Cf Exod. 15', etc. 'Jealousy' for Cv^os is an inadequate word ; the meaning is God's zeal for the interests of His people as against apostolic and heathen adversaries ; but ' zeal ' is by usage employed only of men, and there- fore cannot be here used. oirXotroirja-ei seems to be a word of the writer's own invention, and an incorrect one ; for on the analogy of oirXon-oidf (Pollux) it should mean ' be a maker of arms.' An old rendering, which is adopted by Siegfried, was 'shall arm his creation,' which would be oirXtCetv. Similarly Zenner : 'shall call to arms.' The meaning is plain, and is illustrated to satiety in the last few chapters. The very insects i64 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [5. i8. 19. 20. 18. He shall clothe himself with righteousness as a breastplate, And put on as a helmet judgment undissembled. 19. He shall take holiness for an invincible shield, 20. And sharpen his stern anger into a sword, And with him the world shall fight it out against the madmen. which they are supposed to have worshipped are turned as weapons against the Egyptians. So also the elements are employed (v. '^, 16 '^-2^). But the idea is much older; Judg. 5*', 'The stars in their courses fought against Sisera.' That ' Wisdom ' had any idea of the philosophical truth that nature does avenge the violation of God's laws is of course out of the question, though common experience might have taught him it. The passages quoted by Grimm in illustration are repeated by Farrar, and the salient points alone are given here. They are Philo, Viia Mosis, i. § 17, to o-Toi;(fta roS TravTos^ yrj Ka\ vdcop Koi irvp^ eTTirldevraL, diKaioia-avTos 6eov rrjv dae^aiv xaipav (jiOapijvai, cf. the devastation of the hornet,'Ex. 23 ^* (ffi), etc., and 12^ below. So Josephus, ^72/., II. xiii. 4, tovtois (the provokers of God) ovre yrj, ovre drjp (J)iXor ; Clem. Hoinil., xi. JO, oix avTov (roC QeQxi) avTo^^ipQS dpvvQpivov, oKKk 7rd., 72, wapd(f>pav Kai wapatrXfj^ ttjv SidvoLav. 21. The comparison of lightnings to God's arrows is fairly common, as in 2 Sam. 22 '^, which corresponds to Ps. 18 ^^, i^airia-TiCkiv fieXr) kih ecTKopiricrev avTovs Koi daTpaircis €7r\r]dvvev Koi avvsTapa^ev avrovs^ nearly repeated in Ps. 144°. Cf also Habak. 3", fls 4>^s ^dXiSes eov TTopevauvTai, els i^eyyor darpan^s OTrXmi/ trou ; 2 Esdr. 16'^, 'sagittae ejus acutae quae ab ipso mittuntur,' etc. eiJKVKXos is of course 'well bent,' 'tightly stretched,' but the con- struction of tSiv ve(f>a>v is rather doubtful. A. V. has ' from the clouds as from a well-bent bow, shall they fly to the mark.' But the allusion seems to be to the rainbow. The token of forgiveness (Gen. g '^) is now turned into a weapon of destruction ; or, as Deane rather fanci- fully puts it, 'the sign of mercy is turned away from the earth ; this, the engine of wrath, is aimed at the earth.' 3L's rendering, 'tanquam a bene curvato arcu nubium extermina- buntur et ad certum locum insilient,' is correct except for the unex- plained introduction of ' exterminabuntur.' Possibly Reusch is right when he thinks that we have in the word an alternative (and incorrect) translation of tVi a-Konov dXoiprai, which »zz^/;/ be rendered ' ad terminum mittentur.' 22. This is nearly the rendering of A.V. and R.V. The latter has 'an engine of war' instead of 'a sling.' The only difficulty is the omission of mr before €k Trerpn^o'Kov, which seems awkward. But if the word be really a noun, the English 'stone-bow,' the boy's i6S THE BOOK OF WISDOM [5. 23. 6. i. 23. A breath of power shall rise up against them, And like a storm shall winnow them away ; Yea, lawlessness shall lay waste the whole earth. And ill-dealing overthrow the thrones of potentates. 6. I. Hear now, ye kings, and understand; Learn, ye judges of the ends of the earth ; ' catapult ' of to-day, is an excellent rendering. Cf. Shakesp., Twelfth Night, II. V. 49, ' O for a stone-bow to hit him in the eye.' Both the substantive and the adjective are classical (Lidd. and Sc), and a plural 7reTpo/3dXa is also found in Josephus. Alternative renderings are (i) 3L 'a petrosa ira plenae mitten tur grandines,' where ' plenae ' seems otiose and poor, and ' stone-casting wrath' somewhat grotesque. Nevertheless it is the reading of S*". What Si^ read it is hard to conjecture, but &^ has undoubtedly ' stone- casting wrath.' (2) 'From the sling of his anger' (Grimm) translating TrK-tjpfis, ' dense ' or ' thickly.' The passage which he adduces, however, from Josh. 10^^ (ffi) Kvptos cweppi^sv avTOLS \iBovs )(a\d^r)s en rov ovpavov, does not seem to favour this more than the other versions. (TvyK\vfi,evoL is, according to Margoliouth (op. czi., p. 272), a mistranslation of an Aramaic word which means both to 'boast' and to ' rule over.' If it means the latter, the sense is singularly weak. o;(Xos seems never to be used save in a disparaging sense. So Zenner, apparently following iL, ' qui placetis vobis in turbis nationum,' translates ' look down with pride on the confusion of nations.' We may consider this apostrophe addressed to the rulers of the world not, certainly, as one that would be likely to be read by them or known to them, but, as Grimm remarks {Einl, 27), to be com- pared with the utterances of the old prophets in denunciation of foreign nations and princes — as in Isaiah the doom of Egypt, of Moab, of Tyre ; threats not intended for the ears of those peoples them- selves, but for the comfort and encouragement of Israel against them. 3. The doctrine of the reigning of kings ' Dei Gratia,' to use the style l68 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [6. 4- 4. For being servants of his kingdom ye gave not right judgment, Nor kept the law, Nor walked according to the will of God. of our own monarchs, is found repeatedly in the Bible — i Chron. 29 '2, 'In thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all' ; Dan. 2^1, 'He removeth kings and setteth up kings'; John 19", ' Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above' ; Rom. 13 ', 'The powers that be are ordained of God' ; I Pet. 2 ", ' Governors as sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers.' Cf Ecclus. 10*, 'In the hand of the Lord is the authority of the earth, and in due time he will raise up over it one that is profitable.' Clem. Rom., i Cor. 61 ', 'Thou, Lord, hast given to our rulers and governors upon the earth the power of their sovereignty.' But in Prov. 8 '^ Wisdom claims this power for herself : 'By me kings reign and princes decree justice.' Joseph., B. J., 11. viii. 7, mentions that the Essenes held this doctrine, in the form, as it would seem, of passive obedience. KpaTTjins is, as Farrar says, 'a late bad word,' Kpdros being quite sufficient for the purpose. It only occurs elsewhere in Josephus and in two inscriptions. 4. A question arises as to vofios in the second line ; whether it means the 'Law' in the Jewish sense, or the general principles of justice. A.V. takes the second alternative, R.V. the first (as it appears), following JL, 'legem justitiae' which is explanatory, but not a trans- lation. It is questionable, however, whether such a particularist as Pseudo-Solomon could recognise any 'lex justitiae' as of universal application ; and it seems better to translate ' the Law,' relying on such passages as Rom. 2 ", ' When Gentiles, which have no law, do by nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law unto themselves ; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts,' i.e. not a 'lex justitiae' at all, but a reflection of the law of Moses. Some stress has been laid on the fact that there is no article before vo/iov, which is therefore supposed to have an indefinite mean- ing. But the word is used without the article both in the New Testament (Rom. 2 i^sis.zs^ 3 20) and in ffi of the Old (Isa. 2 % Hag. 2 ", Mai. 2°). 'The Law' indeed, as Cornely remarks, had become a separate entity which needed no definite article. For proof of this we may refer to Ecclus. 24 and (as concerns the Rabbinical doctrines) to Weber, /i/d. TheoL, the whole of the first part of which is devoted to the question of the half-deification of the Torah. Reuss's comment is weak : ' the pagan government, Greek or Roman, and those of the Jewish nation who have associated them- selves with it, are alike to be regarded as apostates ' (from the law). But we have here certainly a step beyond narrowest particularism ; foreign rulers are regarded as actually receiving their authority from 6. S- 6.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 169 5. Terribly and swiftly shall he come upon you ; For judgment in case of them that are exalted is abrupt : 6. For the lowest is pardonable of grace, But the mighty shall be mightily tested. God. This is indeed the Rabbinic doctrine : the seventy heathen nations are ruled over by seventy patron angels, Michael being the prince of Israel (Dan. 10 1^, 12'). This teaching is fully set forth in Weber, Jiid. TheoL, 170, and is possibly alluded to in Ecclus. 17 '', 'For every nation he appointed a ruler; and Israel is the Lord's portion.' Cf. the rendering of ffi in Deut. 32 ^, ia-rria-ev Spia edvSiv Kara dpiBfiov ayyiXav GfoD. ovK iKflivare opdSis is translated as above in order to give the clear sense : unjust or perverted judicial decision is meant, as in Deut. 16 '°, 'Thou shalt not wrest judgment,' etc., 24". Cf Prov. 17^^, Isa. i '\ ' Every one loveth gifts and foUoweth after rewards ; they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.' 5. There is no difficulty in eVioT^o-frai. The verb is used of hostile confronting in the New Testament, i Thess. 5 ^, ai(pvi8ios airols iTTicrTarai oKeBpos, from which the Ven. MS. transferred okiBpos to serve as subject of the verb here, atrorofxas is translated by the modern word 'abrupt,' which seems to be the only one to suit the case here, the sense of ' inexorable ' being implied also. Cf 5 ''■'K The sense of this verse, coupled with the next, is plainly that the higher men are placed the more sternly they will be judged ; for the lowly there will be more hope of mercy. Cf Hor., Od., 11. x. 9 : Saepius ventis agitatur ingens Pinus et celsae graviore casu Decidunt turres ; feriuntque summos Fulgura montes. Hdt. vii. 10, opfis TO viTfpixovTa (aa i>s Kfpavvoi 6 6ebs ovSe iq (jiavrd^eaSaLj ra 8e (TfXiKpa ovdev p-iv Kvl^ct, Churton, ad loc, gives excellent examples of the truth inculcated, from the Bible, besides the familiar one of Luke 12^*, \ IhoBii'.noKv, TToKv ^rjT7]6r](TfTai Trap' avTov^ Ka\ ^ napeBevTO ttoXv, irepifTfTorepov alrrj- crovcnv avrov. He cites Mai. 2', 'The priest's lips should keep knowledge ... for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts,' and Lev. 4 ', where the sin of the anointed priest is only to be expiated by the same sacrifice which was required for the sin of the whole congregation. Compare the cases of Aaron, who abused his position in the matter of the calf, and Num. 25 *, where it is the chief of the people who are to be hanged for the sin of the congregation in the matter of Baal-peor. 6. The passages quoted to justify this use of a-vyyvaxTTos with a 'genitive of origin' asitis called,do not apply to this passage, crvyyvwa-- I70 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [6. 7- 7. For the Lord of all will not shrink from a countenance, Nor have respect for greatness ; For small and great he made himself, And alike is his forethought concerning all ; Tot 0iXori/xi'af in Philostr. Soph. I. viii. 3 seems to mean ' pardonable for ambition,' and in Max. Tyr., iv. 3, . a^ior (Tvyyva>fir]s : a|ios takes a genitive; then why not crvyyvma-Tos ? None of the genitives quoted by Winer at all correspond to this. The translation given ' of grace ' is on the model of the language of Art. xiii., ' neither do they . . . deserve grace of congruity,' Lat. ' neque gratiam de congruo merentur.' S"" has an extraordinary reading, 'a lowly wise king is near to compassions,' which is not followed by the Arabic. The latter gives a good rendering of iKiovs, 'on the score of pity.' The S^ 'near' is probably owing to mistranslation of a-vyyaxTTos as yvtucrTos, which might conceivably mean ' cognatus,' and as ' cognatus ' and ' propin- quus ' may mean the same, we have a clue to the rendering. But the 'king' is inexplicable. tTaarBrja-ovTai is translated by A.V. 'shall be mightily tormented ' ; following H ' tormenta patientur,' which is too strong. It is true that in Gen. 12'' we read ^Ta, where the meaning' is very forcible, 'that they may be taught not to blaspheme.' 12. The third line, weak as it is, is found in MSS. of good repute, including ffi**, and is translated in iL, S^, and Arabic, A.V., R.V., and Genev. It can hardly be altogether omitted. It is possible that we have here a reasoned description of the qualities of Wisdom : it is possible also, as Reuss says, that 'ce n'est encore Ik que de la rhetonque ou, si Ton vcut, de la podsie.' The latter seems more likely; but if we adopt the former view, then 6. 13- I4-] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 173 1 3. She foresUiUetli them that sock, her, to be known of them aforehand. 14. He that riseth up early for her shall have no travail ; For he shall find her sitting by his gates. Xannpa indicates the shining nature of Wisdom, which renders her easy to be found in the darkness of ignorance, while a/idpavTos points the contrast between earthly and perishable rewards and the unfail- ing beauty of Wisdom. Cf. i Pet. i ' and especially 5 \ Kofuiia-Bf t6v dfiapavTov Tt\i 8o|7js trT((\>avov. For the general sense (and for a similar personification of t6 SiKaioi/) cf Ecclus. 27 •*. ' If thou followest righteousness thou shalt obtain her, and put her on Uke a long robe of glory.' 2o0ia seems also to be personified in Matt. 1 1 '", iStKamdrj i) aorfiia air6 tS>v tpyav airrj!. 1 3. The construction is peculiar. (jyOdveiv with the accusative of the persons affected is regular and classical ; Xen., A/iai., v. vi. 9, ff. cif., p. 272\ ' It is well known that tlie translation oi opdpi^en/ for int;', "to seek," is occasioned by a wrong connection of the word with nriL", " the dawn," just as the Latin " evigilare " ma\- be due to a connection of it \\ith the new Hebrew -int.", "sleeplessness."' This might be a Hebraism if the mention of the dawn were here appropriate, but clearly it is not so, mere seeking being alluded to. Freudenthal, how- e\cr, points out that in ffi the verb opdpi^iiv has precisely the sense of ' to seek,' and quotes Hos. 6 ', fv 0\i\jfei avTav dpSpioia-i. npoi fjLf ; Ps. 63 ', 6foi 6 Beos pj>v npos (re 6p6pi(a>, where e8i'\|'i;cre' aroi T) 'I'l'x''; is a parallel clause ; Ps. 77 ", fTreWpfc^ovKai &pdpi(ov npos Til' dfov, to which efijrowv airT-()i' is parallel. Job 8 °, crv Se opdpi^e npos TOV Kvpiov. In all these passages "inC' is the Hebrew word used ; so that Margoliouth's idea of a mistranslation on the part of ' Wisdom ' fails. The connection, however, of the dawn with seeking is certainly not obvious. Cf Ryssel's note on Ecclus. 4 '^. To strike out this reference to early rising and translate simply 'seek,' as in Prov. S '", would destro>' much of the point of the passage, and upsets the obvious connection with dypvrrvfiv in v. 15. Siegfried, 174 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [6. 15. 16. 15. For to think upon her is perfection of understanding : And he that waketh for her sake will soon be without care. 16. For she goeth about seeking them that are worthy of her, And in the ways she graciously showeth herself to them, And in every thought encountereth them. however, thinks that 'Wisdom' did misunderstand 'nntTO m Prov., and read the meaning ' dawn ' into it. oi Koirida-ei is plainly ' will not have to journey far to seek her,' but the exact force of napchpos (which occurs with the genitive in 9 ^) is questioned ; it may very well have the same meaning here as there — ' a counsellor ' at the gate. Heydenreich, quoted by Grimm, supposed that it implied the waiting of the mistress for her lover as in Cant. 3^ (cf. 5'''). It is more like a reminiscence of Prov. 8^, 'Beside the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors, she crieth aloud.' -rrapehpov S'' translates ' an inhabitant,' which can hardly be right. 15. The R.V. is followed in translating (ppovrja-is, 'understanding' rather than ' prudence ' (Grimm), a purely worldly virtue. It is true, indeed, that the relation of a-otfiia to rppovrjcris is ill-defined in Wisdom, (i) in 8 ^' they seem absolutely identical ; in 7 ' cfypovrja-ts is the same as TTvevpa (ro(j>ias ; (2) in 8 ' Wisdom teaches cf)p6vrjcns as in Prov. lo'-^'' (fflt), 17 cTo(jiia dvBpl TiKTit (jypovrjtTcv ; (3) here (ftpovrjcne is a quality whose completion is the attainment of Wisdom ; neverthe- less the idealistic character of our book prevents us from seeing in the term only the ' prudence ' of the Old Testament and of the son of Sirach, which seems indeed to have much in common with that of the unjust steward (Luke 16 ^) who (ppovLpms cnoirja-fv. aypyrrvflv is a common enough term (lit. ' to be watchful ') to denote perpetual activity and watchfulness. The word aypvwvia occurs four times in Ecclus. (31 i-^, 38^8, 42 "), but in the last case it appears to be a mistranslation. Cf Eph. 6 ^8, fir avro tovto aypvnvovvres. 2 Cor. II ^', eV aypvTvviais woKkaKis. Heb. 13 '^, alroi yap aypvTrvovcri.v vTvip Tav -^vxav vp.S>v. Cic, ad Ait., viii. 9, ' vigilantia ac dihgentia' ; Verg., Georg., iv. 158, 'AUae victu invigilant.' In Prov. 8 2* ffic has 'blessed is the man,' 6f . . . dypvn-vSiv ew' ipals dipais Kaff fjpipav. dfi.4pip.vos cannot mean ' will not long be troubled about finding her.' It surely has the sense in which it is used in 7 '^\ or nearly so : 'with- out care,' 'independent,' 'self-sufficing.' i6. There is no idea of 'circumvention' (Churton) in nepUpx^Tai. It is used as is wfpLwaTd ^r]Ta>v riva Karameiv in I Pet. 5 *. The only difficulty in the verse is connected with iv Trdcrj] iwivoia. This has been variously interpreted, (i) 'If only they think of her she will meet them ' ; (2) ' she meets them with all attention ' ; which 3L ' in omni providentia occurrit illis ' seems to favour. But the idea 6. 17-1 THE BOOK OF WISDOM 175 17. For the truest beginning of her is the desire for instruction ; seems simple enough ; the parallel with line 2 can be preserved by explaining ' whatever plan a man has in his mind, Wisdom, if he be worthy of her, will set it right for him.' Grimm quotes Nannius, 'omni mentis intentioni sive cogitationi se offert, et quandocunque animus aliquid prudens meditatur, ibi statim sapientia occurrit.' Omitting the 'prudens,' which is anticipating the intervention of a-o(j)ta, we may take this as the sense of the passage. Wisdom meets a man, cV rpi^ots, or, as the next line explains it, at every decisive moment of his life. With the whole text we must necessarily compare Prov. i ^^ sg'f. ' Wisdom crieth aloud in the street ; she uttereth her voice in the broad places ; she crieth in the chief place of concourse ; at the entering in of the gates, in the city, she uttereth her words,' and the generally quoted passage of St. Augustine, De Libera Arbitrio, ii. 41, ' Wherever thou turnest, he speaks to thee by some of the vestiges which he has impressed upon his works, that when thou fallest away from him in pursuit of outward objects, he may meet thee by the very forms of those objects that thou mayest find him everywhere and acknowledge him to be the life and bliss of the soul.' 17. It is possible to couple aXrjBea-TaTr) either with apxrj or with iiridvu'ia. But common sense seems to point to the first as most likely. 'A genuine desire to be instructed' has no doubt much to be said for it; but that the 'wish to be instructed' (not a very common quality) is the truest foundation of Wisdom is an idea which appeals more to us. The versions, except 3}^ (which renders ' the beginning of seeking her is truth and discipline '), sL, and the Genevan, support this view ; and St. Augustine, de Mor. Eccl., i. 32, quotes 'initium enim illius verissimum.' We find also apx-q crolas in Ps. 1 1 1 1" (repeated in Prov. i ', 9 1°), ' The fear of the Lord is the begin- ning of wisdom.' Here begins an imperfect sorites (vv. I'-^o). The beginning of wisdom is desire of discipline ; desire (or care) of discipUne is love of her ; love of her is observance of her laws ; to observe her laws means incorruption, and incorruption brings us nearer to God. By the rules of Logic the conclusion should be ' the beginning of wisdom brings us nearer to God ' ; but instead we have in v. ^'' the irrelevant conclu- sion (confirmed by v. ^') that ' the desire of wisdom promoteth to a kingdom,' which is neither logically nor actually true. A clearer and better sorites is to be found in Rom. 5 ^-^, ' Let us rejoice in our tribulations ; knowing that tribulation worketh patience ; and patience, experience ; and experience, hope ; and hope maketh not ashamed ' : and again in Rom. 8 ^"j ovs Se Trpoapiire tovtovs koI €KaKe", 7 ", and Matt. 19 ", ' If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ' ; John 14 '^, ' If ye love me keep my commandments.' There is, however, a difference between vojioi and the word here used, ivrokal (in the Old Testament it is TTpoaTayi^aTa). The former, says Grimm, is only used once in the New Testament, Heb. 10'", and then in a quotation from Jer. 31 '^. pofios, however, occurs in a like sense in James 2 *. a(f>dap(ria, which S)^ translates 'non-destruction,' is in this connec- tion but one more proof of the utterly loose way in which the words for 'immortality' are used by writers of the time of 'Wisdom.' adavaa-ia is treated similarly. It may be attained by justice, i '^ ; by ' kinship unto wisdom,' 8 i' ; here by adherence to law ; and 1 5 ', by the knowledge of God's power. Similarly the son of Sirach would seem to make 'immortality' dependent on (41 ■') a good name; (40'') children and the building of a city ; (44 1°) deeds of righteousness and mercy. When Philo speaks of ' virtue ' or ' philosophy ' as leading to 'immortality,' the word is meaningless. I)e opif. Mundi^ § 25, TO Las yevosj vv dyairmvTav top Kvpiov fjixav . . . iv d(p6apa-la, the word is very loosely used, artd was translated by A.V. 'in sincerity.' The Armenian version (Margoliouth, op. czt, p. 282) renders ayanrj ' mercy.' As to wpoa-oxn v6ij,av, the genitive is easily paralleled in New Tes- tament Greek as in ■n-poa-evxri tov deov (Luke 6 ^^). S'' translates 'understanding- of the laws,' and so also &^. 6. 19- 20. 21.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 177 19. And immortality maketh to be near unto God; 20. So then the desire of wisdom leadeth to a kingdom. 21. If ye then take pleasure in thrones and sceptres, ye despots of the nations, Honour wisdom, that ye may reign for evermore. 19. E. Pfleiderer {Heraklit) and other writers insist that this is an idea borrowed straight from the Pkaedo, 6y. In that passage there is certainly something like an expressed hope of immortality. It runs as follows : — vvv 8e ev 'Ltrre, on nap' avbpas re fXTTifo) dfjii^etrBm ayaBois, Ra\ rovTO fjitv ovk hv iravv huii-)(ypt^ expresses this, but seems to have little reference -to-the Greek. It runs thus: 'that she was before (all) creatures I 6. 23] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 179 23. Neither verily will I company with pining envy, For this shall have no fellowship with wisdom. will investigate and will clearly propound the knowledge of her, nor will I pass by righteousness.' The Arabic follows the text, and translates 'from the beginning of her existence.' It is possible also that in line 3 air' apxrjs yevea-eas may mean 'from the beginning of her nativity' (A.V.), though this would properly require the addition of airfis. Some would render (again with reference to the three succeeding 'Solomonic' chapters) 'from the beginning of ??iy life.' But having regard to the contents of chapters 10 s<^q., it seems better to render ' from the beginning of creation.' This, however, strengthens the theory that the writer intended immediately to proceed to such a sketch of Wisdom's operations, and that the next three chapters are an interpolation either of the original writer or of some one else. The exact phrase an' apxrjs KTiVfms is found in Mark 10 ^, 13 '", 2 Pet. 8 ''. If we were not practically certain that the writer of 'Wisdom' was either a senior contemporary or an immediate predecessor of Philo, the second line of the text might be taken as a reflection on that writer and his school, if he had one. Philo, it is true, protests against the idea of esoteric doctrine, De Vict. Offer., § 12, Ti yap ei Koka. rnCr' e. The grammar is uncertain : for if a-woScva-o) be subjunctive, oiVe pjj (not fifji/) must be read, and a few MSS. have either this or ouSe pij. The reference to pining envy is not very clear. Siegfried translates it ' envy of the learned,' but who are the learned in question ? Gfrorer, Philo, ii. 233, discovers a distinct allusion to men like Philo, Aristeas, and Aristobulus, who, he says, treated the doctrine of Wisdom as a mystery (cf. Letter of Aristeas, 260, 261). 'Pining envy,' there- fore, is a reproach directed either against the Egyptians (?) or those Jews who prided themselves on the possession of the true in- terpretation of Scripture. Philo, he says, though pretending to make all plain, is really always posing as a hierophant. The passages quoted on v. ^^ support this. There is a strong verbal correspondence between this line and Philo, De Vict. Offer. (J.c), (j)66vos yap dperjjf SimKLo-rai, ' there is no room for so mean a vice as envy in the sphere igo THE BOOK OF WISDOM [6. 24. 25. 24. Now the multitude of the wise is the salvation of the world, And a wise king the establishment of his people. 25. And so be ye instructed by my words, and ye shall be benefited. of virtue' (Farrar), and Philo also quotes {Quod liber sit guisqicis, § 2) Plato's Phaedrus, cj)66vos e'lm Beiov xopov 'cTarm, For the description of Envy cf. Ovid, Met., ii. 775 sqg'., ' Pallor in ore sedet : macies in corpore toto . . . videt ingratos intabescitque videndo successus hominum, etc' This goes far to explain the epithet 'pining' envy. Envy is personified, and depicted as suffering from the wasting sickness which consumes the jealous man. ovTos probably is Tj)pia virapx^i- (v noKkf; fiovKij. (|^, 'in the multitude of coun- sellors,' which is really more approprfate to our text). For fia-Tadeia A.V. has 'upholding of the people,' Genev. 'stay of the people,' and % ' stabilimentum,' all of which express the mean- ing. R. V. ' tranquillity ' is inadequate. The word is not uncommon ; it occurs in 2 Mace. 14", where R.V. translates also 'tranquillity,' 3 Mace. 7^. Clem. Rom., i Cor. 61, oh 60s Kupif vyielav, flprjvrjv, Ofiovoiav, eva-Tadetav (' stability '). The verb eva-radiw is also in use, and is classical. For the general sentiment cf the well-known passage in Plato, Hep., V. 473f, 'unless philosophers become kings or kings philosophers, there will never he rest from evils in the cities.' 25. The use of wcrrc in this sense is curious, but classical. Soph., 7. I.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM i8i 7- I. I indeed am also a mortal, like to all, And offspring of one earthborn, first formed ; Elect., 1172, BiirjThs S' 'Opea-rris acrre jxtj Xiav oreVf. Cf. I Cor. 4^ and I Pet. 41". Grimm points out at some length the apparent contradiction between these verses and what has gone before. Here it would seem that the conversion of heathen rulers to ' Wisdom,' and consequently to the religion of the God of Israel, is contemplated as a means of setting the world right. (So in 14'' the abolition of idols is regarded as sure to come.) But in 5 i" si/^. we have a plain prophecy of the destruction of these heathen powers : there the kingdom of God is to be established not by conversion but by annihilation. It is likely that Pseudo-Solomon had no clear idea on the subject. He is a victim to the constant contradiction between particularism and uni- versalism which hampered the Alexandrine philosophers. On the one hand, the Messianic kingdom was to be ^founded on conquest and ruin of the enemy ; on the other hand, the new birth of man as a result of the assimilation of ' wisdom ' is looked forward to. The first view represents dogma ; the second sentiment. 7. I. That the author in this and the two following chapters attempts to assume the part of King Solomon there can be no reason- able doubt, though the contrary has been recently maintained in a little book (otherwise excellent) on t/ie Authorship of Ecdesiastes (cf. Wright, Koheleth, p. 60). That doubts should arise, however, is not surprising. If we leave out of account these three chapters, it is amazing how any man of 'Wisdom's' mental calibre could attribute to the cosmopolitan trader-king of Israel the sordid particularism which pervades the rest of the book ; if we consider these chapters we are struck with the totally different view of Solomon's character presented there and in Ecdesiastes (cf. especially 2* R.V. and Wright, p. 64), who does not hesitate to allude to the king's luxury and polygamy, while ' Wisdom ' is full of exhortations, hypocritical if they really come from Solomon, to temperance and sobriety, and denunciations of voluptuous vice. It is only fair to add that such passages only occur outside the three ' Solomonic ' chapters, unless 9 "'^ can be reckoned among them (cf note on v. ^^ below). The connection with what precedes is not very obvious (the fiAv in the first line is probably answered by v. ', but there is no fie to correspond), but may consist in the fact that Solomon disclaims his royalty as affording him the peculiar privilege of wisdom. Any one can possess it (6 ^*, all can be educated in it), and no man can plead lowness of station as an excuse for not showing it. There may also be an allusion to the legendary supernatural powers with which Jewish tradition had endowed Solomon, and which he here disclaims. yijyEv^s is a natural word to use of Adam as formed dn-i t^j y^s (Gen. 2', Ecclus. 17 \ i Cor. 15*'), but the actual term, though i8^2 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [7. 2. 2. And in the womb of a mother was I formed as flesh, In ten months' space, compact with blood. By the seed of a mian and the pleasure that accompanieth wedlock, classical, does not occur in the New Testament, cf. Clem. Rom., i Cor. 39, Ti yap Sivarat BvrjTos ; V tIs l(r\vi yqycvoijs ; wpoiroTrXacTTos is perhaps a genuine invention of Pseudo-Solomon. Why Farrar should doubt this does not appear. It occurs agam m 10'. Deane gives examples of its use by the Fathers ; Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Irenasus (' protoplastus ' in the Latin). !L has here 'qui prior factus est,' which is inadequate. S" 'the son of one bom of the earth, first created.' 2. Grimm, clinging to the theory that ' Wisdom ' taught the pre- existence of souls, remarks that he does not tell us when the soul is joined to the crop| ; whether at the moment of generation or at that of birth. Farrar, accepting all that Grimm says, nevertheless ob- serves that the writer is rather a creationist than a traducianist ; his views agree with those of Philo, who held that the pre-existent souls are fleshless and bloodless, and have no participation with earthly matter. For a very full philosophical account of the infusion of the soul into the embryo at the moment of conception cf the quotations from the Rabbinical writings in Weber, /iid. Theol., 226. The view there represented is frankly creationist and appears to imply the pre-existence of souls, but certainly not in the Platonic sense. yXui^ti) is not a very usual word in the sense of ' mould,' ' fashion,' but it occurs in 13''', Ecclus. 38^', meaning 'carve' or 'engrave.' For 'to fashion,' as in Job 10 8, Ps. 119'', ffit uses another word — trXaacra. A great number of passag'es are quoted to illustrate the common statement of the ancients that ten months was the period of gestation. One only is well known, Virg., £■<:/., iv.6l, ' Matri longa decem tulerunt fastidia menses.'' The most interesting is from Philo, Legis Allegor.^ i. § 4, where he tries to make out that seven months (his mystic number) are sufficient to ensure 'life' to the child. With this we compare Arist., Hist. An., vii. 4, who says that in Egypt women being evcKcfiopoi (cf Exod. I '"), produce children at eight months. It might seem that lunar months are meant, but Romulus (Ovid, Fasti, i. 33) is said to have divided the year into ten months, 'utero matris dum prodeat infans ' ; and these were not lunar months. Cf. Soltau, Romische Chroiiologic, 83-86, 246. eV aitian is very generally taken of the menstrual blood, which was supposed to unite with the seed for the formation of the foetus by a kind of curdUng process possibly alluded to in Job. 10 '", ' Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese ? ' Why rjSovrf is mentioned is not clear, unless Gaab's idea is right, that this supplied the spiritual element in the new creature. This, of course, Grimm 7. 3] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 183 3. And when I was born I drew in the common air, Yea, and fell upon my kindred earth, Wailing out my first cry like unto all : rejects as inconsistent with his ' pre-existence of souls ' ; but he is right in saying that the writers of Eccles. 11^, 2 Mace. 7 ^^, Ps. J 2^13-16 show more sense when they treat the whole thing as a mystery. He quotes an admirable sentence from Calmet, ' Quis jubet sacros auctores ex physicorum principiis loqui ? Communes illi aetatis suae opiniones sequuntur.' eV with an instrumental mean- ing is possible in Greek, and is a common Hebraism. 3. The expression crnav t6v depa tov kolvov is found word for word in Menander, Frag., vi. 6, ed. Brunck., and in Eccles. 3 ^ (men and beasts) 'have all the same breath.' ' Fell upon (my kindred) earth ' is a traditional expression derived from very early times. We have it in Hom .,//., xix. 1 10 used as of ' all men on earth,' os kcv eV rjfjLari rade neo-j] ix€Ta noa-frl yvvaiKds rav avhpwv. The expression in Isa. 26'*, 'Neither have the inhabitants of the Gs.r\h fallen,' is conjecturally translated in accordance with the context : ' been born ' ; cf. also v. 19, ' The earth shall bring forth ' (lit. cause to fall) ' the shades.' ' Cadere matre ' or ' de matre ' is so used in Latin, as in Val. Flacc, i. 355, Claudian in Riifin., i. 92. The expression ' tollere infantem ' for ' to recognise a child as one's own ' belongs to the same early stage of civilisation. Deane aptly quotes Lucret. v. 224 : 'nudus humi jacet, indigus omni Vitali auxilio, quom primum in luminis oras Nixibus ex alvo matris natura profudit.' The meaning of oiiownaBTJ is much disputed. The rendering given is that of R.V., and agrees with yrjyevfii in v. ^. It occurs twice in the New Testament, Acts 14^^, James 5 ", but in both cases it means ' of like passions,' and gives us no help here. Luther rendered it ' omnium gestatricem,' which is not a translation of the Greek at all ; Grimm would have it to mean ' aeque omnibus calcatam ' ; but how Horace's 'aequa tellus pauperi recluditur regumque pueris' (Oil., 11. xviii. 32) supports him it is hard to see. The loose S"" has simply ' in the manner of all men ' ; the Arabic, ' which renewed or repeated my griefs.' But IL, Castellio, AV., Genev., and to a certain extent Acts 14'*, all support the translation given above. Churton in- geniously paraphrases ' the earth in compassion for my weakness received me into her bosom.' %^ follows the Greek word, ' suffering the like.' 'ina is of course purely adverbial (a classical use), but it puzzled the transcribers, who thought it should be "o-tji/ to agree with ((>mvr)ii, and some omitted the word altogether(ffi'<), while the Complut. read ^ko ' I came,' and H has 'emisi,' which may refer to this reading. iS4 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [7. 4- 5- *'■ 4. In swaddling clothes \v;is I roared and with cares. 5. For there is no king that had any other beginning of hfe : 6. And of all these is one entrance into life and a like departure. 4. (jipovri&fs might be well represented by the Latin ' fastidia ' : but that is used by Virgil of the troubles of gest.ation. HL ' In involu- mentis nutritus sum et curis magnis.' S'' is brief, but expresses the meaning : 'In swathing bands was I anxiously wrapped up.' Parallelomania can hardly excel Gregg's suggestion {IiitroJ., liii.) tliat 'Lk. 2" recalls Wisd. 7, where the homely detail of the royal child being wrapped in swaddling clothes is recorded.' He rightly adds that 'these similarities may be purely accidental.' 5. '.^pyi) yfFf'o-fmr might me.an 'source of existence' ; and Philo ,/<• Miiihii Of>ir'., % 22, certainly so uses it when he sa\s to (rnepiia rior ^0)0)1' yei/eVeo)? tip\i)v slvaL avpii^iStjKf. y4i'€ais is used not only of actual birth, but of die life which follows it, as in Jas. 3°, (pXoyi^ovaa rdv Tpoxov r^f ■yf rto-fur (where, howe^'er, yeveais is usually translated ' nature '). But die next line seems to define the meaning here. ' The beginning and end of life are the same for all.' We note that in 6^'' the same words are used in an entirely different sense — one of Pseudo-Solomon's peculiarities. 6. Farrar rightly describes this scnliment as a 'commonplace of moralists.' There is indeed little else in the whole of the three chapters. This passage, ho\\e\er, is wiilely illustrated from \arious sources. It is well and eloquently treated in luclus. 40''", ' .\ hea\y yoke is upon the sons of Adam from the day of their coming forth of their mother's womb until the da\- for their burial in the mother of all things,' etc. ; ' from him that ^^■eareth purple and a crown, e\en unto him that is clothed with a hempen frock.' Horace, Oi/., I. iv. 13, has the well-known lines, 'Pallida mors aequo pulsat pede pauperum tabernas regumque turres'; but the most striking corre- spondence is found in I'heodorct, Om/. ix. i/i- rn>:'iif,-nti,i : Ov fiovoy 6e Tijv €if Tdv jSinv aaobov p.lai>^ aWa kol tijv t^odot' L(rrfi' ^\op€r. So Job I ^', ' Naked came I out of m\- mother's wonib, and naked shall I depart thither,' /.<■. to the mother of all, as in Ecclus. /.<•. .Again Job 21 ^-''^^ propounds the truth that though men die in various ways, early and late, yet 'they he down alike in the dust, and the worm covereth them.' This is perhaps the most pessimistic passage in Wisdom and the nearest to Koheleth. Eccles. 3 '-'^"j ' .Vll go unto one place ; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.' There is in the three chapters no single note of the ' hope full of immortality ' of 3 1 The ' immortalile mncnionique ' of S " is a mere mockery of the real thing. . 7- 8. 9-] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 185 7. Wherefore I prayed, and understanding was granted me ; I called, and the spirit of wisdom came unto me. 8. Her I preferred before sceptres and thrones, And deemed riches as naught in comparison of her. 9. Nor did I count as equal with her a priceless jewel. For all gold in her sight is as a little sand. And as clay shall silver be accounted before her. 7. The meaning ofSta tovto seems to be that Solomon recognised his own weakness, king though he was, and so prayed for that wisdom which alone could make him a good ruler. This is fully emphasised in 9°-^ and in 8°'. No doubt the writer had in his mind the vision of Solomon, i Kings 3 "-^^ and his prayer, 8 '^"°^. It is, however, useless in the case of a vague writer like the author of 'Wisdom' to attempt to draw distinctions between 0pw))o-ir and the nvevfia a-ocjiias. To him they are much the same, and Grimm's quotations to prove a difference between an objective ' Wisdom of God' and a subjective Snsdom as communicated to a man,' are superfluous. That anything like the ' Holy Spirit ' is meant is of course out of the question. fjrcKoXea-diiriv (without an object) requires some notice. The verb in its original sense (Lidd. and Sc.) always means 'to call upon a God.' Hence the omission of any object (as in .A.cts 7 *^, eXidofioXow Tov 2Ti6aKiJ.ois n-ov, but iv 'A-^ei seems never to be used. Even a Father (Methodius) in quoting this very passage sub- stitutes ivoiniov avTris for the correct reading, it has ' in comparatione illius' ; but 'in judicio illius' is certainly the sense in Deut. 4 ^^ and in numerous other instances. The Armenian (Margoliouth, p. 283) supports the Latin rendering. 10. There is a difference of opinion (unimportant) as to the mean- ing of dvTi (^Qirof, which IL and Arab, render ' pro luce,' 'as a substitute for light,' and so Grimm, A.V., Genev., and Arnald, who paraphrases neatly : ' I determined to have her for a light or guide.' But the meaning suggested by R.V. is better : ' I had rather lose fight than wisdom, for the light of day wanes and perishes, but the fight of wisdom never.' Ps. 11 g '"•'', 'Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and light unto my path,' rather favours the view of IL. dKoi/xTjrov, 'never laid to rest'(!iL 'inextinguibile,' for which acr/Sfo-Tor, Matt. 9 1*, Mark 9 *' is the proper word). The idea of the eclipse of earthly light is a common one. Cf Hood : Wherever he may be, the stars must daily lose their light ; The moon will veil her in the shade, the sun will set at night. The sun may set, but constant love wiU shine when he 's away. So that dull night is never night and day is brighter day. 11. There is for once some force in the connecting particle 8/. 'Though I made light of earthly blessings in comparison of her, these came to me with her unasked.' Cf i Kings 3 ", ' I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches and honour.' Cf. Prov. 3 ", ' In her left hand are riches and honour ; 8 '«, ' Riches and honour are with me ; yea, durable riches and righteousness ; 7. 12. i.vl THE BOOK OF WISDOM 1S7 1 2. And 1 rejoiced in all because wisdom guidclh them, Yet I knew not that she was the mother of these things. i,V Frankly did I loam and ungrudgingly do I impart, 'I'lic riches of her I do not hide away ; M;ill. 6"'', 'Seek ye first his kingdom and his righteousness; and all these things shiill be added unto you.' !L renders drapW/iijToj TrXoOrof by 'innumerabilis honestas,' and elsewhere translates ttXouo-ios 'honestus,' and TrXovros 'honestas.' Whence this singular Low-Latin rendering is derived it is impossible to say. It appears in one or two Fathers. We have 'honestas' in V. '' and 8 "*, and 'honestare' in iqI". With the whole passage cf. 2 Chron. I '^, rrfv (ro(jilav xai njv a-ivea-tv Si'Smjui (Toi, Koi w\nvTov Kai ^pijuara Koi 80^01' bacrai aoL, i>s oIk eyfvrjSq o/xoto; (rrji it' Tots /3a(riX€iJ{rt tols t^TrpoirBi o"ou, koX ^era (re ovk etrrai ovTcas. \2. For ytuciTi.v (.Swctc), IL, Arm., and some good MSS. read ■yfi/fVii' which A.V. and Genev. translate. The word is not found elsewhere, but is regularly formed, and is certainly the 'lectio difficilior.' The meaning of ^yeirai, 'leads' or 'guides' them, is plain. Unless Wisdom directs the disposition of earthly goods and honours, they are a eurse rather than a blessing. The i rendering 'quoniam ante- ccdebat me ista sapientia' is very hard to explain, save on the supposition that the translator had not ovt-mi/ in his text at all. The difference between the readings fVi irdvTav and fVi ndiriv is entirely unimportant, liois (lissa/, 391) explains 'Wisdom walks before, and good things follow in her train.' fhe last hne is exceedingly mysterious. It seems only explicable by a reference to the vision of Solomon in 2 Chron. i '"'2, in which he asks for wisdom without knowing that wisdom would bring him all other blessings. Th.it the rule of Solomon was not altogether dictated by wisdom is apparent from the complaint of his subjects to Rehoboam in i Kings 12 '. 13. This is very like a repetition of 6 -■', and unless some polemical sense is implied, it is dirficiilt to sec what purpose the verse serves. It is possible that Philo may have had predecessors who, like him, dealt in mysteries and occult interpretations. For an unfavourable account of these later sophists and their pretensions cf Drummond, /'////<', i. 4-7, and Diihne, Jiid.-Alcx. Riliiiions-Philosophic, i. p. g, etc. '.\Si)\(ot is not very enlightening. A.V. 'diligently' is quite beside the mark, (."rcnev. 'unfeignedly' is an accurate translation enough, as is U, 'Qiiam sine fictione didici.' S'" and Ar.ib. have corresponding renderings ; but none of them convey any meaning to the reader, any more than does Churton's paraphrase, ' with no mercenary motive.' Reuss, 'sans arriere-pensee,' i.e. without thought of the iS8 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [7. 14. 14. For an unfailing treasure for mankind is she, Which they that use do foster friendship towards God, Being commended by the gifts that come from her training. temporal advantages which Wisdom actually brought ; but this affords no antithesis to a(f>dmo>i. Parallels are plentiful. Matt. 30*, 'Freely ye have received, freely give'; i Pet. 4", 'Using hospitality one to another without murmuring, according as each hath received a gift, ministering it among yourselves as good stewards of the manifold grace of God' A curious passage in Ecclus. 20'' (and 41"; furnishes a kind of commentary on the verse. ' Wisdom that is hid and treasure that is out of sight, what profit is in them both ?' Deane quotes two apt parallels from the Fathers : Euseb. on Ps. 33 *, ddoXcos i'Xa^ou, d66va)s /xETaSi'So^ai ; and Justin Mart., Apo/, i. 6, wavTi ^ovkojihif fiadelif, US edtdd^drjfiev, diit]v in classical usai;o may mean (i) according' to his or my wish ; (21 in my or his opinion ; (^'i according; to his or my purpose ; but it ilocs not mean 'with judj;uient' i,R.\'.), thouyh possibly the writer thought it did. ,S'' also has 'with counsel.' U is indefinite. S"* 'according to will.' The translation of (vdv/itjOrivai is also unjustified by classical usage. It Nvould seem possible to construct it with the genifi\e and render ' to take heed duly to the gifts that have been granted me.' But tliough the (neck is bad the sense is good : 'not merely to conceive line ideas (ii praesumere'i but to be able to express them in worthy language.' seems even more appropriate. 'Xeyo/.ttva can hardly mean, as A.\". marg., 'things that are to be spoken of »i*i;y.'iv (Toc^mr is the guide 'of Wisdom' and not ' to Wisdom,' as .A. v., llenev. It rightly h.as ' dux sapientiae,' but Arab. ' who leads to wisdom.' This is graiumaticalh- possible, but destroys the parallel with line 4. 16. This loose use of « ■• \ei^n aCrov (cf Isa. 40 '^ ' w ho hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand "> should ser\e to prevent attempts to define the exact sense of the words in 3 ' and elsewhere. With Xoyoi cf. Exod. 4 '^, 'I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt sa\-.' The second line seems to have little or no concern either with what goes before or what follows, and the couunentators ha\e been 190 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [7. ir. iS- 1 7. For it was he that gave me aii uncnins; knowledge of the things that be, To know the ordering of the world and the workini; of the elements. 1 8. The beginning and end and middle of times, The turn of the solstiees and the changes of seasons, exercised to devise a connection. 'Epyazfla, a liyzanline word, would seem from its derivation from ('(lyiiTi)s-, 'a workman,' lo mean 'handicraft,' and certainly cannot bear the meaning of 'works of God,' which Heydonreich (quoted by Grimm') would assign to il. The suggestion 'rerum gerundarum peritia,' which would include statesmanship, has more claim to attention, but in any case (fipi'n't^iTis is here something much more special than 'understanding,' to which rendering R.\'. of course adlicres. There may be truth in Churton's suggestion that hea\cii-ins])ircd arlilicers like Kezaleel are alluded to. In that case Farrar's rendering' 'skill' for (un'i;ini- is adei|uale. Exod. 31 ', e'i'(7rXi)v fiio/jfluTi/f. 17. One wotild expect that efioi would come first, as in v. '", if the emphasis is on it, as the connection just indicated would rec|uire ; 'he is the director of the wise, for here am I whom he instructed.' (nurrdiKs- Tov Kntr/xoi', the organisation of the world, appears in the Thiiitii/s, j2r, in close connection with mention of the elements, tSiv 5c fir) rfTT(i/)o)i' tv oXoi* ckoctoi' 6tX»;<^fi' 1/ rnO Koajxav (Ti'irriuns-. fK yap TTvpos niu'Tiii- vSaros t( koi aepos Koi •yijr (TUvf'oTijirf]' m'iTi'ii' 6 avvKTrds. This seems to render it certain that iTToi\ita here means the four elements, and not, as in a siigi^estion quoted bv Dahne ii. 176, n. 107, 'the heavenl)' bodies' and their influence. The term might mean this, and S'' actually renders it so ((A_i.ldLD), as also (Margoliouth, o/>. a'/., p. 288") the Ethiopic. Cf Lidd. and .Sc. s.;: ii. 5. .After Tlato the name (ttoixim for elements came into common use. Ct. 2 Pet. 3 "'■'^, OTot^^fia KaviTovfKi'a Xufijo-fToi. 18. The first line seems so indelinite that it has gixeii occasion for somewhat wild conjectures to lix its meaning. That 'l)e.u;i lining' can mean 'autumn,' 'end' summer, and ' miildle ' winter and spring (Grotius and Bauermeister, cited Ii\' (Svimm) is inciedihle : lo know the seasons is in the rapacity even of beasts. A reference lo 'the three divisions of the Greek month' is fantastic. A better suggestion is that of Heydenreich, that a knowledge of the periods of tlu'-"\vorld's history, possibly prophetic, is indicated. A general meaning is given by Dcane, viz., 'a poetical circumlocution' for the dilieience' and 7. 19- 20.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM ig' 19. The cycles of years and the positions of the stars, 20. The natures of animals and the tempers of beasts, The forces of spirits and the devices of men, The species of plants and the virtues of roots : variety of the periods concerned in astronomical chronology,' and if this be interpreted (Farrar) to mean the knowledge requisite for con- structing an astronomical calendar on sound principles, we probably have the true meaning. The possession of such powers has alwaj's been regarded with peculiar esteem among early civilisations. Tpoirmv aWayas, the alternation or perhaps rather ' turn ' (the exact period of the change) of the solstices, is quite a simple expression, Tpowai with or without ^Xi'ou being the regular word to denote mid- summer and midwinter, though it is occasionally used for the move- ments of other heavenly bodies than the sun. But unfortunately the reading rpd-mi', ' changes of manners ' ^an idea utterly foreign to the context), is found, and seems to have introduced general uncertaint\- into the passage. Grimm enumerates four renderings of TpoirS>v aWayds — (i) motions of the stars generally ; (2) earthly effects pro- duced by such ; (3^ turn of the solstices ; (4^ earthly effects produced by such. Furthermore, the Coptic (Margoliouth, /.<:., p. 288} translates 'airs' and S'' 'of things' generally. This latter and the Arabic ' conditions ' may represent the reading rpoirav. The use of rpoTral in Hellenistic Greek is rather uncertain. In Deut ;}^ " we ha^e ^Xi'ou tjottoi, but in Job 38 ^, rpoTrdi oipavov, and in James i ■", rponri is of obscure meaning. Similarly ' changes of seasons ' for /irrajSoXal Katpav is by no means a certain rendering. Kaipos- used absolutely in the sense of seasons is not classical. Its proper meaning is ' opportunities,' ' crises in human affairs,' and if that rendering be accepted it certainly favours the reading rporroiv, as does the Arab. ' Wcissitudes of times.' 19. The translation 'circuits of years' is almost meaningless (-A.V., R.\'.), and to render in accordance ■nith the classical usage, as in Eur., Ores/., 1661 {eviavrov kvkXos, 'the circling seasons'), is to repeat what has already been said. ' We must suppose that Pseudo-Solomon claims the knowledge of " cycles " lunar and solar, the intercalary' method, the sacred and ci\'il reckonings, etc.' (Deane). Edersheim, Hist, of Hie Jewish Xation, p. 353, points out that for a considerable period mathematics, geometn.-, and astronomy were considered as the peculiar study of the Jews. And for their general intellectual superiority he cites DeuL 4 ^■^, which, however, refers to legislation. 20. (^uo-EiE ^usasv is the general nature of living creatures, which might ■ possibly include man. dv/jiovi 6r)plaiv is the particular ^vays of beasts, and especially \\ild beasts; their disposition and (16^) their rages. 'Tempers' expresses both. 3L 'iras,' S*" 'rages,' S*" 'rage.' 192 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [7. 20. ' Wisdom ' could find this in i Kings 4 ^3, ' he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes.' But still more in the book of Proverbs, which he would no doubt consider Solomon's own work, do we find constant allusions to the animal creation. Churton quotes in Prov. I ", the simpUcity of the bird ; the ant and roe in 6 ^-5 ; the ox in 7 22 ; the swallow, horse, ass, and dog in 26 % etc. ; the bird forsaking its nest, 27 ' ; the lion and bear, 28 1'= ; the leech, eagle, serpents, jerboas (properly rock badgers), locusts, spider (properly lizard), and ants in 30 '=-^'. The statement of i Kings is practically repeated by Josephus, Ant, VIII. ii. 5. The translation of npeviidraiv ^ias as 'forces of winds' (R.V., A.V., Genev., %, S^, Arab.) is supported by a passage in Philo, De Opif. Mundi, § 19, where he says that it is possible for men, by observing the stars, to 'trace out' (not to control) /Si'ay nvcvjiaTav. Yet this is almost certainly the wrong interpretation : when ' Wisdom ' means the ' violence of winds,' he uses jSi'ai dve/iaiv (4 *), and some form of anti- thesis between irvfiimTa and avBpanoi is clearly required. We must translate ' spirits,' and the word fiia, which generally means ' violence ' (cf. Prom. Vinct, Prol., where bia and kratos — violence and tyranny — are conjoined), seems to refer chiefly to evil spirits. It is useless to say that the belief in demons formed no part of the Alexandrian philosophy. The tradition was that Solomon's power extended over evil spirits especially, cf. Joseph., ./iw/., vill. ii. 5, 'God enabled him to learn that skill which expels demons . . . also he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms by which they drive away demons,' and in the Koran, Sura xxi., evil spirits only are mentioned. It is pertinent to this passage to remark that in the Rabbinic theology angels when sent on missions to earth, take the form of winds ; when they stand before God, they are as fire. Weber, y^V/. TheoL, 167. StaXoyitrixoi is of course not ' the thoughts of men's hearts ' ; those are known to one only; but their 'tricks,' their 'disputations'; cf. the Judgment of Solomon in i Kings 3 '^ sgg'. A like meaning of the word is found in Luke 9^^, 'a dispute among them, which should be the greatest.' Phil. ii. 14, x''>p'^^ yoyyva-fiaiv kqI SioKoyia-fjiSiv, so in I Tim. 2 ^, x^P'^^ opyrjs Kal dioKoyia^oiv. Am(popai (jjvTwv is certainly the species of plants. Grimm quotes Theophr., //isf. Plant., VI. iv. 5 and VII. iv. I. dwdfieis piiwv is a characteristic addition to the Scriptural state- ment in I Kings 4^, 'he spake of trees, from the cedar tree in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall,' and is illustrated by the story in Josephus {Ant, Vlll. ii. 5) of the extraction of a devil through a man's nostrils by th^ aid of a root discovered by Solomon. One such root is actually described by the Jewish historian in B. J., vii. vi. 3, as of the most wonderful power in driv- ing away demons from sick persons. Its name is Baaras, and under ordinary circumstances it is certain death to touch it, etc. 7. 21.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 193 21. And whatsoever is concealed and manifest I learned to know, For Wisdom the contriver of all did teach me. 2 1. The enclitic re is a very weak particle to act as a conjunction for two substantive clauses as here. It is questionable if a writer with an exact knowledge of Greek would have so used it ; it is possible that ' Wisdom ' really meant it to strengthen the kqI which joins KpvirTa and iixavri, but in 12* he again uses it to join clauses. The rarity of re in Hellenistic Greek is noteworthy. It occurs frequently enough in St. Paul's writings and those of St. Luke — the most polished Hellenists ; thrice in St. Matthew and thrice in St. John, twice in St. James, once in St. Jude, and twice in the Apocalypse. For iii^avT) IL gives the extraordinary rendering 'improvisa,' read- ing perhaps dc^ai/^. This reading is actually found in Euseb. Praep. Evan., XI. vii. ; but there is another way of accounting for the IL reading. Reusch (quoted by Comely) conjectured that the original reading was 'in provisu,' which with the meaning of 'in prospectu,' or even ' in manifesto,' might really represent efi(f>avri. If the mistake was made it must have been very early, for S. Ambrose (De Abrah., ii. 7) quotes the received text. On the face of it, the claim to know all things secret and manifest seems an absurdity, and was laid hold of as such by the opponents of the use of the Apocrypha for reUgious purposes, during the German dispute on the subject in the early fifties of the last century. But it is reallyonlyarepetition or expansionof what has already been said. The 'things manifest' are the operations of nature, the 'things concealed' are the 'forces of spirits and the devices of men.' No doubt Solomon did not possess these to the extent with which later Jewish tradition credited him, but the whole passage, the whole chapter indeed, expresses that tradition. It is inadvisable, and probably does not express the writer's mean- ing, to translate TC)(y'i.Tis by the word ' artificer,' which suggests the idea that Wisdom was the actual creator of things. That she should be, as an attribute of God, the contriver of natural order and of men's reasonings need not mean too much. It need not alter our inter- pretation when we find that God himself is called in 13' the Texvirris of the world. Pseudo-Solomon is quite accustomed to use the same word loosely in different senses, as in the case of fTria-Korrri, and the language of these three Solomonic chapters is so exaggerated that argument from the use of terms here is useless in reference to the other parts of the book. That in Prov. 8 ^^ Wisdom is called ' master- artist' (according to the correct version), and that Philo calls her the mother or nurse of the world (Dahne, i. 223, quoting Quod deter, potiori zVw/V/., § 30), matters nothing. Philo's 'Wisdom' is theS Logos. Our author's is not. 194 THE BOOK OF WISDOM t"^- ^ 2 2. For there is in her a spirit of thought and of holiness, Singly born yet manifold, subtile. Mobile, lucid, unadulterate. Clear, inviolable, loving goodness, acute, Unhinderable, beneficent, 22. The above is a translation of the common text, as it may t called, accepted by Swete and Fritzsche, and based on the general coi sensus of the MSS. and the versions, eanv yap ev aiirp irvevfia. But very early variant, i'^rnv yap airfi nvfifia, existed, as is proved by tl quotations in Euseb., Praep. Ev., VII. xii. 4 and XI. xiv. 4. It is als found in ffi'^ and a few other MSS. of httle value mentioned by Grimn A good deal depends on the reading here. If the variant b accepted we have something very like an identification of Wisdoi with the Holy Spirit, which was favoured by the Fathers, who did n( understand that this was to ascribe the doctrine of the Holy Gho: to an Alexandrian origin — a mistake of which full use has been mad in modem times. It is likely that the variant was due to som supporters of this identification. The remarks of Reuss are brii and incisive : ' This last reading (i'tj-riv yap avrrj) is evidently moi favourable to the theory which considers Wisdom as a divine perse or hypostasis, while the other implies a conception less advanced i this direction, and generally speaking less clear. It is precisely account of this difference that we should prefer the received readin as the older.' This sums up the somewhat prolix note of Grimn who, however, raises a different point : 'The received reading als may be due to a Trinitarian copyist who wished to distinguish th third person of the Trinity from the second, the Son of God, who we identified with o-ot^ia.' But this last statement assumes a good deal Drummond {Philo, i. 216) remarks that 'the distinction is one 1 words rather than of reality,' for a few lines further down (v. ^ ' wisdom ' once more takes the place of the ' spirit ' which is said ( be ' in it.' The passage does not seem to justify this statement ; an Bois' proofs {Essai, 234) that the Holy Spirit and Wisdom are tl same are doubtful. When he says of this text that 'Wisdom is nvevfia or possesses a TrveOfut,' he ignores the whole point at issu Gfrorer, ii. 222, also thinks that no difference is implied, and says tl passage ' explains the whole of Philo ' (223). Unfortunately there exists a third reading also for line i : foriv 71 €1/ avTTJ, which might mean ' She is in herself a spirit,' and so Be translates it {Essai, 391) ; but this only introduces an alternati' difficulty into a text already sufficiently difficult. tiotpov is said to be a word borrowed from the philosophy of tl Stoics, who used the somewhat incongruous phrase ■jrip votpov, and f their Supreme Being to ■n-epL€)(ov ra oXa voepiv. The term is ho' -ever, found in Plato and in Aristotle, and is considered Platonic 1 Burton, Bampt. LecL, iii., n. 20. 7. 23-] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 195 23. Kind to man, certain, unerring, self-reliant, Universal in power, universal in purview. And pervading all spirits Of thought, of purity, of utmost subtilty. 23. The string of epithets which follows may also best be character- ised in the words of Reuss. ' The commentators have remarked that they number twenty-one, and have discovered premeditation in this.* He is wrong in casting doubt upon the 'premeditation,' but right when he goes on to say, ' It is impossible to see anything here but a chance enumeration dictated by exuberant rhetoric ; the epithets succeed one another without order, and, moreover, are partly synonymous.' 'We remark (i) that several of these epithets refer to intellectual faculties, while others concern moral \irtues ; (2) that the author enumerates at haphazard qualities which necessarily belong to the spirit considered as an emanation of di\init\-, and others which, though the product or effect of this spirit, are of a kind to be attached to humanit>- only, as is implied in the last phrase of the catalogue.' He sees in the list the confirmation of his remark previously made, that 'Wisdom in Jewish philosopln- includes at once theoretic and practical elements.' For die ' classifications ' to which he alludes we may refer to Grimm, p. 157, who discusses the efforts of Hasse and Baunigarten-Crusius to discover some order in this congeries of adjectives. It is impossible to say diat the passage gi\es us any clear idea of the nature of ^^'isdom or of what the writer conceived her to be, and to write a detailed commentary on every epithet is the work of a lexicographer. The verses are a mere rhetorical exercise, very possibly based on tlie model of Cleanthes the Stoic quoted in Euseb., P. 2i., XIII. iii. 44* rayaQov fparqs /x' otov ear' • aKove drj, Tcray^evov^ StKatov, oiriov^ eiia-e^es. Kparovv eauroC, \pr](TLfjLOv, koKov Bfov ktX. By the last obvious emendation for KaXm; 84ov, we bring the number of epithets to four times seven. A similar heaping together of adjectives is found in Philo, where 147 epithets are assigned to the Epicurean. That the number twenty-one is dehberately chosen can scarcely be doubted. Cf. on the mystic qualiries of seven (and presumably of its multiples) Grimm's quotations, p. 157. The pre- ser\ation of the exact number in the IMSS. serves to correct the aberrations of the translators, who, confused by so many \ague epithets, sometimes expanded one into t«'0, so that the 5* has in place of 21 no less than 27, and the 3L 25 adjectives. The Arabic inserts two entirely unauthorised epithets between ' kind to man ' and 'certain' in this \erse, and so attains to tlie number of 23. The copyists were plainly influenced, some b\' a desire to maintain the sacred multiple of seven, some by the wish to make the number correspond ^vith the letters of the Greek (or Hebrew) alphabet. Of all these twenty-one, hardly any contain a definite idea or embody a philosophic truth. Moroyevey at first sight seems to 196 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [7- 24 24. For Wisdom is more mobile than any motion, Yea, she passeth and goeth through all things by reasor of her pureness. provide material for discussion, but is presently explained away b) voXviiepes. There is no reference to the genesis of wisdom. Drum mond, i. 219, 'These are two contrasted terms, and must be considerec in' relation to one another. The former expresses that unity whicl through the necessity of thought we ascribe to wisdom. We cannoi rationally speak of two or more wisdoms, but only of one ; and therefore, considered ontologically, it must be a single essence, 'onl) begotten,' not one of several similar emanations. Nevertheless ir this unity it must be manifold, 'as its modes of action are various'— not, however, as Drummond assumes, in the various ordered processes of the natural world, but rather in the 8ia\oytrriiot of men. The last two lines seem almost without meaning, at least as they stand. That wisdom 'penetrates thoughtful minds' is a platitude after what has been already said. The versions endeavour to pul some meaning into the phrase by referring the epithets to Wisdom herself. IL has 'qui capiat omnes spiritus : intelligibilis, mundus, subtilis.' S'' shortens the three epithets into two, ' clever and clear, still referring them to Wisdom. The Armenian (Margoliouth, p. 282; has ' is sufficient for all things.' These are not mistranslations but glosses — attempts to attach a meaning to an empty phrase. S' keeps to the order of the received text, but has twenty, or (taking in the last two lines of the versej twenty-one or possibly twenty-three epithets. 24. The verse seems to be an explanation or expansion of the last sentence : Wisdom penetrates all souls prepared to receive her, because she penetrates all things. The expression KtvrjTLKoiTfpov Kivfjo-eais (the neuter is grammatically correct, cf Virgil's ' varium et mutabile semper femina') is clumsy but expressive. % has 'Omnibus mobilibus mobilior est sapientia.' S'' is extraordinary: 'she is changed in all ^kinds of; changes and ^so; guided.' The expression bir]Kei xal x'^P" ^^L 'attingit ubique') seems to be a Stoic phrase. Grimm quotes the two words in conjunction from Plutarch and also from Athenagoras, Suppl. 6, Oi uttu r^r oTaas 81' \i\i\i . . . (I)ain TO nvevjj-a y^mpiiv tov deov . . . diT)Kei 8i hi' oXov rot) Koafwv But the idea is a very common one in semiphilosophical writers whc have no fear of pantheism before their eyes. Cleanthes, apud Ter tuUian, ApoL, xxi., is cited for ' permeator universitatis spiritus,' and Seneca, Consol. ad Helv., viii., for 'divinus spiritus per omnia maxima ac minima, aequali contentione dififusus.' Farrar very appositely quotes lines from Wordsworth and Pope, the latter o: whom, at any rate, would probably not be deicrred by suspicions o unorthodoxy. Hooker, Eccl. Pol., v. Ivi. 5, gives the true Christiar 7. 25. 26.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 19^ 25. For she is a vapour of the power of God, And an emanation of his all-governing glory, without alloy. For this cause no polluted thing stealeth into her. 26. For she is a reflection of eternal light. And a spotless mirror of the working of God, And an image of his goodness. explication of such expressions. Other authorities for the Stoic formula are given in Drummond, P/iilo, i. 87, notes. KaBapoTT)! is wrongly translated by % ' munditiam ' ; for the idea is not of purity but of pureness, that is of ' sinceritas,' ' immateiialit\-.' As immaterial, \Msdoni can pass through all things where a material body could not. For this use of the word cf Philo, Vi'fa Jfosis, i. ^ 20, 'A^p fiev ovv Koi ovpavos al Kadapatrarai p.OLpai 7^9 rav oXaiv ova-las. 25. ^^'ith this verse begins the puzzling account of ^\"isdonl as an emanation. There seem to be three distinct metaphors employed — (I'l the breath of God ; (2) an exhalation, so to speak, of His person ; (3^ a ray of His brightness. Gfrorer, ii. 225, in a rather obscure passage, argfues that dr/ii's and diroppoia together make up the 'pleroma' ; but airoppoia has probably a distinct meaning" of its own, not unlike that gi\en to it by Empedocles and his school, who ga^'e the name to the ' effluences ' of objects by which they were assumed to impress tliemselves on the senses. 'Arpis vf'^T which the Armenian as quoted b\- Margoliouth, p. 285, and the Ethiopic must have read aKris — a reading not without its merits) finds some justification in Job 33 ^ (Elihu speaks), wevpa 6eiov to •noiri^i') compare Gen. 2 ' (where, however, G translates Tnjy^) with Gen. i I See also Ecclus. i ', ' poured her ^^^\'isdom) out upon all his works.' If, ho\\'ever, oktU could be read, diroppota might well mean an emanation in the form of light, for which sense Grimm quotes Marc Aurel., ii. 4, Atlrenag., Apol., p. 10. In that case the meta- phor would be the same throughout, ' the ra)- ; the beam ; the reflection ' (nn-aiVyatr/ia). 5*", ' a pure emanation of the thought of the ruler of all.' wapeniriwreiv is a curious word, or rather is used in a curious sense. A\\ translates it hterally 'fall into her' ; 2. more intelligibly 'in eam incurrit' ; S"" and Arab, like AX. But the meaning is rather 'creep into,' 'steal into unnoticed.' Aeschin., De Falsa Lia, and yet half the arguments of the critics on this verse {e.g: Grimm, p. 163) depend on such a supposition. Bois {Essai, 234) argues for the identity. He adduces 9 ^ as a proof that Logos and Sophia are the same. The words are, ' who madest all things by thy word, and by thy wisdom thou formedst man.' There is not the sUghtest indication here of a belief in the writer's mind that the 'word of God' was anything else than the spoken word of God. E.g. ' God said Let there be Light, and there was Light.' There is, indeed, in this passage no personification at all of either idea. This is not the only difficulty raised by ' Wisdom's ' metaphorical language. He so expresses himself that it might well seem that he identified God with material light. The writers of the Old Testa- ment, though they represent God as surrounded by light (cf. Ps. 104^, ' Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment ') or in action like fire (Deut. 4 2*, 'The Lord our God is like a consuming fire'), yet are careful, warned by the example of their neighbours, never to identify him with light or fire. In the New Testament we have the one instance of I John I ^ ('God is light'), but the language there is plainly as rhetorical as that of Wisdom. Philo is careful to speak of d(7-tt>fiarot avyi] and of (^wf ^v)^lk6v (cf. Dahne, i. 272, and the notes there). Wisdom is not so cautious, but no doubt the vv. ^^-^ correct in part the materialistic idea here conveyed. ' Being compared with light, she is found to be before it,' etc. This does not prevent Pflelderer {Heraklit, p. 301) from claiming 0ms athiov as a distinctly Heraclitean idea. It is possible that 'Wisdom,' in his confused way, keeping to the idea of the mirror, means eiKoji' to be the image in the mirror. The word is thus used in Plato, Rep., ill. 402 B, fiKoi/ar ypa^L^iarmv ei jrou r\ iv uSacrtv ^ eV Kardnrpots €fi(palvoivrn ov -/rporefiov yvoitroiicda kt\. 7. 27.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 199 27. But she being one can do all, And abiding in herself maketh all things new , And generation by generation passing into holy souls Maketh them friends of God and prophets. Though he never actually applies the word aTraiya(Tjj.a to the Logos, Philo in one passage gives us an explanation which may well serve to illustrate the metaphor : it is found in De Somn., i. § 41, KoOaTrep yap TTjv dvOrjXiov avyrjv as ^Xiov ol fj-rj dvvdp,€voi Tov ^Xlov avTov Ideiv opatrt , . . ovras koX tt)v tov deov elKova tov ayyeXov avTov Xoyov, as avTov KaTavoQiKri. 27. The A.V. has 'being hii one she can do all things,' and so Siegfried. The R.V. leaves the point unsettled, as do the versions, IL ■ B^ Arab., but plainly two senses can be given to the words : either (i) in spite o/being only one she can do all ; or (2) by reason o/her self- containedness and unchangeableness. This latter seems to agree well with the second line. Assuming that Wisdom is another name for the Spirit of God, we have an exact parallel in l Cor. 12 ", Tj-avra raira evepyel to (v koX to ovto TTV^iiiMa. Similarly the next line Ta iravTa xaivifei will then find a parallel in Ps. 104^^. c^aTTOOTeXets to nv^vp.d rrov kcu KTia-OrjcrovraL^ nal dvaKaiVLeis TO Trpoa-anrov ttjs yrjs. What the precise meaning of the words in Wisdom is it is difficult to understand. The phrase seems a mere rhetorical enlargement. Taken, however, in conjunction with the next line, it may mean ' she renews the human race one generation after another, and in each influences holy souls.' The similar passages Heb. 6^ and Rev. 21 * give us no assistance here. Gfrorer's theory that the Platonic doctrine of ' ideas ' {Philo, ii. 226), as the only really permanent things, is here indicated, is too ingenious. A passage of Anaxagoras (Arist., Phys., VIII. v. 10) quoted by Grimm, in which vovs is represented as at once dnaBris and djuyrfs, illustrates our text better. KOTO yevfds has been persistently misunderstood, except perhaps by Arab. The S^ has ' in every age,' and A.V. ' in all ages.' Genev. comes nearer to the sense of the Greek, ' according to the ages.' IL, ' per nationes,' is peculiar. It would literally mean that Wisdom chose the best souls out of all (heathen) nations ; but this is far too advanced an idea for the particularist Pseudo-Solomon. The idea of change from one generation to another is emphasised by the pre- position in p,eTaj3aivovaa. For 'friends of God' cf. notes on v. i"*. It is suggested, however, that ' Wisdom ' had in his mind rather philosophic than Biblical ideas, and that 6 nev aaxppav 6ei^ (j)i\os' ofio'ios yap (Plato, Laws, bk, iv. 716) suggested the idea to him as it may have done to Philo {Frag, ap. Mangey, ii. 652, from John of Damascus), nds aocpos rjTijs is an ambiguous term which has given rise to much con- troversy. Deane is right when he says that it means ' an interpreter of God's will, not necessarily one who foretells the future.' But he goes too far when he compares the English use of ' prophesying' for mere preaching. For the term ' prophet ' always implied inspiration, in one form or another. Cf. Philo in Gfrorer, i. 57. Farrar is no doubt wrong when he argues against Grimm that people like Wisdom would recognise ' ethnic inspiration.' That the greater Fathers did so is no proof that the Jews were capable of such large-mindedness. The best among them may have regarded the Greek poets and philosophers with respect, but for the most part their, writings were considered as valuable just so far as they supported or could be made to support Hebrew views of religion. Thus 'the Sibyl ' was used simply as a vehicle for something very like forgery. From the words ' generation by generation ' Grimm elicits the idea of a continuance of prophecy which he thinks is illustrated by Philo's own curious claim to inspiration {De Cherub., §§ 7-10), and Josephus' account of the prophetic powers of John Hyrcanus {Anit., xill. x. 7) and of the Essenes {B. /., 11. viii. 12). But the latter statements are deprived of all worth by his lying story of his own prophetic powers {B. /., HI. viii. 9). Bois proposes a most complicated rearrangement of the verses from 721 onwards: thus 721-29.30^ 31, 722-28^ 8 2 sqq. All such pro- positions proceed on the theory that Pseudo-Solomon is a continuous and philosophical thinker. 28. The meaning is, in such persons only are to be found the ' holy souls,' cf V. 2'. The neuter olhiv or ovdiv, instead of the masculine (which appar- ently no MS. of weight gives), perplexed the translators. IL simply renders 'neminem.' a-vvoiKovvTo, considering the recurrence of the metaphor, where it cannot be questioned, in 8 2 and 9 '", may surely be understood here as of matrimonial cohabitation. Our own expression ' wedded to his books' and the like gives plenty of warrant for the idea. Such meaning is, however, questioned, because a-woiKelv KaKi}, Xuwi;, <^o/3m are found ; but these are obviously more extensions of the idea ; cf Tennyson's ' Sorrow, let me dwell with thee, no casual mistress, but a wife.' Upon this metaphor of wedlock with wisdom, Dahne, ii. 170, n. 96, founds an argument for the Therapeutic authorship of Wisdom, the Egyptian ascetics being said in the Be Vita Contem.pl., § 8, to be eager to cohabit with Wisdom, though such union produces no mortal children. In reality the statement is rather an argument for the 7. 29. 30-] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 201 29. For she is fairer than the sun, And above all order of the stars : Being compared with light, she is found superior ; 30. For to this doth night succeed, Whereas wickedness hath no power against wisdom ; Christian origin of the tract, the language approaching that used in the Church of the ' Brides of Christ ' and so forth. 29. This verse, as already mentioned, seems to be intended as a corrective to the ambiguity of v. '% where see notes. It is possible that aarpaiv 6ia-is means ' constellations,' as R. V. and Siegfried translate it. But this is embraced by the general term ' order of stars ' which A. V., following Genev., adopts, and so IL and Arab., while S^, as usual, has an eccentric but possible interpretation, 'fixed stars.' The meaningof aa-ripaiv dia-ets in v. '" seems slightly different ; c£ notes there. For Trporepa the ' elegant ' reading Xa/inpoTepa is found in one or two MSS., but is obviously a fanciful gloss. 30. The passage is paralleled by Soph., TracJi. 30, vil fiVayei koi vv\ dffw^fl diaSeSeyp-evri ; and the idea is a familiar one in poetry, as in a well-known English song — ' By yon bright moon above ! ' — ' which can change like man's love,' ' By the sun's brightest ray ! ' — ' which night's clouds chase away,' and Hood's ' Wherever he may be, the stars must daily lose their light ; The moon must veil her in the shade, the sun will set at night.' 'A-vTio-xvetv with the genitive is not found elsewhere, nor indeed has it elsewhere the same sense as here, being used (in Dio Cassius) with the simple meaning of 'to repel by force.' We find, it is true, in Matt. 16'*, nvXai aSov ov KaniTxva'ova'i.v avTTJs, and apparently on the strength of that passage Compl. reads (with a few MSS.) oi KaTi(Tx}>i\eLv used in John 5™, 16^'', and so even of man'; love for Christ, l Cor. 16^^, ft rir oi (^iXei tov v 6 debs oix 0)5 dvdpconos ecmeipe yeveaiv, which certainly seems reminiscent of Greek fable. Of the second line &^ has a remarkable rendering, ' because God is her father and the Lord of all loves her.' Margoliouth, loc. ci/., justifies this as a double version of a double Hebrew text, n'3N ^nd nanx ('her father,' and 'he loved her'). 4. This most mysterious passage has puzzled all translators. The above, which is the R.V., is probably near the correct rendering, but (i) fivdns is by some taken as jiva-rayayos, not the initiated but the initiator, and so IL ' doctrix enim est disciplinae Dei.' Arm. ace. to Margoliouth, op. cit., p. 285, must have read ipaa-rqs, and S>^ has ' She is the daughter of the secrets of God, and the daughter of all his counsels and the glory of all his works.' (This ' daughter,' however, is a well-known periphrasis in phrases denoting character, quality, etc. Cf., for instances in Hebrew, Oxford I/ei. Lex., s.7/. n3, § 5.) Arab. reads, 'The companion of the secret of the knowledge of God, and higher in dignity than all His works.' What text the three can have had before them it is impossible to conceive. We have then eVio-T^/iT; fleoO, which Gfrorer, ii. 220, will have to mean the ' knowledge of the being of God,' i.e. she instructs men in the knowledge of God ; but the next line shows plainly that it means 'the knowledge which God possesses.' Furthermore, he takes alpins as 'disciple,' comparing alpea-n in the sense of a 'belief or 'way of thought ' in Acts 24 1^-^*. But this is not likely ; the whole tone of the passage, whether we read aipins, or with some inferior authorities €vp4ns, is distinctly in the direction of establishing Wisdom as a being apart from God. In a more systematic thinker it would be decisive : here it is very probably an unconsidered exaggeration, and we have the usual confusion of human wisdom in v. ^, and divine o-oqbi'a in this and the preceding verse. 5. The translation given leaves much to be desired. The real meaning of ipyd^caBai seems to be to make money out of a thing : we might almost use the modern term ' exploit.' This is the render- ing of the acute Nannius, and is accepted by Grimm and after him 8. 6. 7.] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 205 6. And if understanding be regarded as a worker. Who in all the world is a greater artist than she ? 7. And if a man cherish righteousness, Her labours are virtues ; For she teacheth temperance and prudence, Justice and manliness. Than which nought in life is more profitable to man. by Farrar. We come down from the exalted ' wisdom ' of v. * to the merely human prudence which was after all the Jewish ideal. &^ is here a mere loose paraphrase, and Arab, keeps closely to the Greek, 'worketh all things.' But the worldly interpretation is supported by Prov. 8 '^, ' Riches and honour are with me. Yea, durable riches and righteousness.' So, too, Prov. S^% 'I wisdom have made subtilty my dwelling, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.' There is no disguising the fact that lucre is here indi- cated, as in the case of the 'virtuous' woman in Prov. 31 w-i^.is^ whose chief commendation is her gainful handiwork. 6. This translation is suggested with hesitation. It is that of the A. v., of Siegfried, and of the Arabic. &^ seems to take no account of the words tS>v ovrmv, which are generally rendered as R. V., ' who more than wisdom is an artificer of the things that are ? ' That (ftpovria-is is here used as equivalent to o-oi^m need not surprise us ; but an alternative rendering is possible, ' if human wisdom is a worker, who more than sAe {i.e. the heavenly wisdom) is an artificer of the things that are?' Human wisdom can produce results, but only heavenly wisdom can call into being things permanent and self- existent (Gregg). The conjecture epaCerai is useless ; there is no such word. More is to be said for Schulthess's proposed reading ei (^pov^creas epa ris, and still more for Bauermeister's el (jjpovrja-iv ipya^erat (ris), for this was what &^ read ,nM; •Juj] U>^ 1ZqAj.J <^ <3 ' ^^ ^ man desire to work cunningness.' But the rendering proposed ' If a man desire to seek wisdom eagerly,' is hardly supported by John 6 % ' Labour not after the bread that perisheth,' where manual toil is indicated. The difference between i-f;(>'iT-t9 (Swete) and TexviTr/s (the received text) is unimportant. Churton naturally refers for an illustration to Bezaleel : Exod. 31 ^, quoted on v. '^. Bois suggests an emendation el Se Trjt (ftpovTja-ecus eparm koi SiKaioo-vvriv dyaira riff, ol irovoi tovttjs . . . avdpoiirois' tls avTrjs raiv ovTtov paKKov eo-Tt TexvlTiqs; a conflation of vv. ^-^ 7. The paucity of our author's vocabulary is shown by his repetition of SiKaiocrvvri in the first line as the general goodness of a man's life : 2o6 THE BOOK OF WISDOM [8. 8. 8. But if also a man long for much experience, She knoweth the things of old and how to surmise of the things to come; She understandeth the tricks of arguments and the answers of riddles ; Of signs and wonders she hath foreknowledge, And of the issues of seasons and times. in the fourth in its distinctive sense, i.e. fairness as between man and man. Nothing can be argued from this passage, which is a mere common- place of the schools, as to Pseudo-Solomon's acquaintance with Greek philosophy. Platonists and Stoics alike used the formula of the foui virtues, sometimes with slight variations, such as the substitution ol (va-e^eia for (f>p6vri(f>po Alleg., i. § 19, is well known, bu it throws no light upon the interpretation of ' Wisdom.' Cf., however Ecclus. 24 25.26. 8. The variant eixaffi in line 2 is probably the conjecture of i scribe who saw the absurdity of 'surmising' about the past. Th( translation given avoids the difficulty, but it is very likely that th< writer, in his loose fashion, intended 6iKaf«v to govern, both ap^au and fieXKovra. ■n-oXvnci.pia likewise seems to be loosely used — wid( knowledge (of the world) is probably the meaning which ' Wisdom could have attached to it, and so 3L 'multitudinem sapientiae.' Thi versions {Si^ and Arab.) both take the obvious sense of the passage 'she knows the past and divines the future'; but that is hardly thi Greek. 8. 9-] THE BOOK OF WISDOM 207 9. I determined then to take her to live with me, Knowing that she will be to me a counsellor in prosperity, And a comfort in cares and grief. a-Tpo