With these facts before us, we entirely differ from Gfriirer {Philo, ii, 207 sq.), Diihne (Jiid.-alexandr. Reli- qionsphilos. ii, 153 sq.), and others, who maintain that the author of this book derived his leading tenets from Alexandrian, ami more especially from Platonic, philos- ophy, and fully concur with Ewald (iv, 549), who re- marks "that no one who is intimately acquainted with the Old Test., as well as with our author, will say that he derived the doctrine of immortality from the above- named source. The specification of the (suxppomn'T], (ppo- vi](nc, ciKdioavrr}, and dvSpia as the four cardinal vir- tues, both here (Wisd. viii, 7) and by Philo (ii, 455 sq. ; 4 Mace, i, 18 sq. ; v, 22 sq. [where evcTfl3tia is put for (ppov)]nig~\ ; xv, 7, where there is a similar change) is indeed real Platonic, and is derived entirely from the Platonic school. But even these four virtues appear in viii, 7 as merely secondary, and in the whole connec- tion of the treatment of the book as accidental." Welte (Eiiileilunf/, p. 163 sq.), indeed, who does not dispute the agreement of the book of Wisdom with Alexandrian philosophy, goes so far as to say that it only refers to such things as are also more or less clearly expressed in the canonical books of the Hebrew Scriptures.
2. In its religious doctrines the book of Wisdom is one of the most important and interesting contributions to the literature of the Jewish theology before the ad- vent of Christ. It shows how the tenets of the Jews were preparing them for the teachings of the New Test. Thus it tells us that God is not the author of death, but made both man and all creatures in the im- age of his own eternity, and delighted in the whole of his creation (i, 13, 14; xi, 24), which he made for per- petual duration (ii, 14 ; comp. Horn, viii, 20, 21). Death entered into the world through the envy of the devil (Wisd. ii, 24). AV'e have here the first instance on rec- ord where the serpent which tempted the protoplasts in Paradise is identitied with the devil (ver. 24), thus con- firming the explanation given of Gen. iii, 1-1.5 in John viii, 44 ; Kev. xii, 9 ; xx, 2. Griitz (Gesck. iii, 443 sq.), who caimot brook so striking a confirination on the part of the Jews before Christ to the correctness of the teach- ings of the New Test., will have it that this is one of the passages interpolated by a Christian hand. But there is very little doubt that the Jews believed in the identity of the serpent and Satan long before the ad- vent of Christ (comji. Ginsburg, T/ie Kabbalah [Lond. 18(;5], p. 29), and that this notion has even passed over into the Persic religion (comp. llengstenberg, Chrislolo- (jij, i. 7 sq., Engl, transl.).
The book of Wisdom, moreover, shows that the doc- trine of immortality and a future judgment was most emphatically believed and was generally current among the Jews (i, 15; iii, 4; vi, 18, 19; viii, 17); that the Is- raelites believed that the wicked attract death by their sinful deeds (i, IG); that the saints, who are the chil-
dren of God (ii, 13, 10. 18), will ultimately judge the world and ride over the nations thereof (iii, 8 ; comp. Matt, xix, 28; ICor. vi, 2; Kev.ii, 2(5 ; iii, 21; xx,4-()). The author of this book also jiropounds the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul (viii, 20). This, however, he did not derive direct from Platonism, both because the manner in which he enunciates it is different from the mode in which it is represented by Plato and Philo. and because this doctrine was held by the Essenes in Palestine and is to be found in the Talmud (comp. Jo- sephus, War, ii, 8, 11; the Talinud, Chagiija, 12 b; IV- bainot/i,&2; Aboda <S'«?-a, 5; Ginsburg, T/ie Kabbalah, p. 31 sq.). The body is regarded as the seat of sin (i, 4; viii, 20) and as a mere hindrance and prison of the soul (ix, 15; comp. 2 Cor. v, 1-4; Josephus, War. ii, 8, 11). No trace, however, is to be found in this book of a resurrection of the body or of a personal Mes- siah.
V. A uthor and Date. — 1. As the book itself ascribes the words therein contained to Solomon, and represents him as narrating his personal experience (ch. vii-xix), the book of Wisdom has come down to us by tradition as the production of this great monarch. Thus it is not oidj^ expressly described as the work of this wise king in the inscriptions of the most ancient versions (viz. Sept., Syriac, Arabic, etc.), but it is quoted as such by the most ancient fathers of the Church, such as Clement of Alexandria {Strom., vi), Tertullian {De Prcescr. H ceres, c. 7 ; Adv. Vulent. c. 2), Hippolytus (p. 66, ed. Lagarde), Cyprian {Exhortat. Mart, xii), etc. The Solomonic authorship has also been maintained by some very learned Jews — xiz. De' Rossi {Meor Enajim [ed. Vien- na, 1829], p. 281 b), AVessely {Introduction to his Com- ment. on Wisdoin), and by some Protestants. With the exception of Schmid (Das Buck d. Weisheit iiber- setzt und erkldrt [Vienna, 18.58]), and one or two oth- ers, critics of the present day have entirely discard- ed this view, for the following reasons: (1.) The book was written in Greek, and in the later style of this lan- guage. (2.) Its author exhibits a Greek culture which no Palestinian Jew possessed even at the time of Greek ascendency over Judtea, as is evident from the later Pal- estinian writings, and from the express declaration of Josephus {Ant.-KS., 11,2) that his brethren had an aver- sion to Greek education. The Greek culture of the au- thor of the book of Wisdom is seen in his notions of what constitutes knowledge (vii, 17-20; viii, 8); in his acquaintance with the Epicurean doctrine of fate and the philosopliico-materialistic view of nature and the future destiny of the soul (ii, 2) ; in the distinction which he makes between the nobler and educated features of heathenism and its grosser forms (xiii, 1-15); in his view of the origin of image-worship (xiv, 14 sq.), etc. Comp. Grimm, Comment, p. 19, etc. (3.) It contains un- questionable quotations from the Sept. This is not only evidentfrom ordinary passages, as vi, 7; xi,4; xii,8; xvi, 22 ; xix, 21 : but from extraordinary instances where the Sept. differs from the Hebrew, and where the words of the former are inwrought into the text itself; e.g. Wis- dom ii, 12 puts into the mouth of sceptics the words of Isa. iii, 10, h'eSpivaiopsi' rbv Sikuiov on Si'OxpijffToc: I'lph' ioTt, according to the Sept., which essentially dif- fer from the Hebrew text; and Wisd. xv, 10, (nruCof; »'/ Kupcia ai'Tov, which, again, is an important variation of the Sept. on Isa. xliv, 20 from the Hebrew. (4.) It re- fers to matters of history (Wisd. ii, 1-6, 8 ; xv, 4), which are inapplicable to Solomon's period (Grimm, Comment. p. 17).