(6) In his anthropoloqy the author Insists pre- eminently upon individual immortality. Of this the canonical 01' knew nothing, its point of interest lying merely in the continuance of the
Seople of Israel and the consummating of the king- om of (iod amongst them. Hut the Book of Wisdom recognizes that man, i.i:. tlie individual, was created for incorruption (2^ 0"* 12') ; in par- ticular, the righteous live for ever (u'**) ; the know- ledge of the power of God is the root of im- mortality (15^). It is true that the conception of immortality vacillates between that of a continued personal existence and that of a survival in the memory of posterity (8'^), or even between the first conception and that of the ideal coiiiimniity of life with Wisdom (8"), which the righteous enjoy even here during their earthly existence.
On the other hand, a future judgment for th« wicked is presupposed in 4™, following up the OT conception of a mockery of the dead in Sheol (4", cf. Is U'""-). See, further, Farrar, p. 409.
(c) In the soteriologu of the book, the late pro- phetic expectation or a personal Messiah, the Servant of the Lord, recedes. 'I he author knows Him neither as vicarious suHerer nor as deliverer of His people. The Messianic glory consists in the establishment of a kingdom of Jahweh which shall rule over the heathen (3") ; the righteous exercise personally this sway upon earth (5''*'), as happened formerly with Solomon by God's command (8'*). On the attitude of the rest of the Apocryphal books to this question cf. Farrar, 410*, esp. note 3. — Our author maintains rigidly the Jewish doc- trine of retribution (ot' Civ tij a/iaprdvet 5id tovtiiiv /toXaferai, 11'*). But his method of expounding this dogma is new. He seeks to show that even the form of punishment corresponds exactly to the sin committed. The Egyptians worshipped animals, therefore they were also punished by means of animals, nay the very animals which they adored (11" 15'^ 16'). They sinned iu con- nexion with water by casting the newly -bom children of the Hebrews into the Nile (11*), there- fore they were also punished by means of blood- red water (ib,).
vii. INTIOGRITY OF THE BoOK. — The work i» evidently the well - arranged product of a single author. On now defunct hypotheses, which found in it the work of a number of different hands, see Grimm, pp. 9-15, aiul Farrar, p. 415'. Its in- tegrity, too, may in general be admitted (Grimm, 15 f.). Only the conclusion (ig'*"^) gives the im- pression of aliruptness. Although in general the author's intention is successfully carried out in depicting the wonderful guidance of Israel by Wisdom from the Exodus onwards (Grimm), yet the theme started in v.'* appears to require some- what fuller treatment between v.^' and v.^, so that the traditional text is here defective.
viii. Authorship. — As to the personality of the author various suggestions have IJeen offered. The book has been attriliuted to Solomon by Clem. Alex. [Slrom. vi. 120 ff.), Tertullian, Hippolytus (ed. Lagarde, p. 66), et al.; to Philo by Jerome, Luther, Joh. Gerhard, et al. For these and other conjectures see (irimni, pp. 16-26; Farrar, 412-415'. In view of their untenable character, we consider that we m.ay dispense with a closer examination of them. The probabilities are in favour of an Egyptian Jew who had received a Greek educa- tion but had remained true to the Law. His description of Epicureanism, to which many Jews had apostatizeil (2'"-), apjiears to have been derived partly from tjoheletli. For his further acquaint- ance with the works of Greek philosophers see above, p. 92S''. The beauty of the works of Greek plastic art found him as unimpressionable as St. Paul (Ac 17'*). Sculptors and painters are to him lovers of evil, and their work is unprofitable (15'") ; works of sculpture are to him nothing but idols (14'"). He has Euhemeristic notions of the motives that led to the making of them (14"*-)- That he was not a Palestinian but an Alexandrian Jew, is shown by his allusions to the Egyptian animal-worship (15'"- " 16'"). Greek images of the gods (15-"') might then be seen even in Egyi)tian cities. In favour of the view that the author lived in Alexandria, is the circumstance that both a Greek and a Jewish population were settled there, and that his culture was derived from both these quarters.
ix. Date. — F'or the date of the Book of Wisdom, the terminus a quo is the Greek tran.slation of the Bible (c. 250 B.C.), the terminus ad quern the un- questionable acquaintance of St. Paul with the
WISDOM, BOOK OP
WIST, WIT, WOT, WITTY 931
book (cf. Grafe, ' Das Verhaltniss der paulin. Suhriften zur Sap. Salom.' in Theol. Abkandlungen C. V. }Vei:sdr/:er zu s. 70 Geburtstage geu-idmet, Freiburg, 1892, p. 251 if., where in particular the autlior establishes St. Paul's dependence upon the book in regard to the doctrine of predestination, the condemnation of the heathen, and the con- ception of the relation of soul and body). Keseni- blances to the book or influences from the same quarter are discoverable also in the Epistle to the Hebrews (cf. He P « iUi \Vis 7-«, He 4" with Wis "i^"- etc.). The most recent attempts to lix the date vary up and down between 150 u.C. and 40 A.D. (cf. Farrar, 420''-422*). The position wiiich the author assumes in the development of Alex- andrianism prior to I'hilo (cf. Siegfried, Philo von Alex. 22-24) is in favour of placing him between B.C. 100 and 50. Kuenen {Hist.-crit. Onderzoek, § 105'°), it is true, will have it that the book was not composed till the time of Gains Caligula,