Next in point of antiquity is the theory that Philo is the author of this book, as is seen from the remark of Jerome, " Nonnnlli scriptorum veterum hunc esse Phi- lonis Jud;ei affirmant" {Pra-f. in Libr. Sal.). This view was also adopted by De Lyra, Luther, Kainold, Calovius, bishop Cosin, and others. But against it it is to be urged that the whole complexion of the book, as well as its historical, theological, and philosophical elements, is at variance with this hypothesis. Thus — (1.) The forma-
WISDOM OF SOLOMON
1023
WISDOM OF SOLOMON"
tion of the foetus in the mother's womb is at variance with Philo's notions upon the same subject (Wisd. vii, 2 ; comp. Pliilo. De Muiidi Opif. in 0pp. ii, 15). ("2.) The two kinds of pre-existeiit souls — viz. good and bad — are described in this book as destined alike to inhabit hu- man bodies, whereas Philo only lets the sinfully disposed soids occupy human bodies, and says that tlie good souls aid the Deity in the administration of human atfairs (Wisd. viii, 19; comp. Philo, De Gigaiiti, in 0pp. i, 263). (3.) In this book it is distinctly declared that the Egyp- tians were punished with serpents, whicli Philo as dis- tinctly denies (Wisd. xi, 15 ; xvii, 9; comp. Philo, De Vit. JIos. in O/'/J. ii, 97 sq.). (4.) Tiie darkness with which the Egyptians were visited is described in this book as having proceeded from the infernal regions, while Philo affirms that it was occasioned by an unusual eclipse of the sun (Wisd. xvii, 1-i ; comp. Philo, De I'it. Mos. i, 21). (5.) The view that the serpent which tempted our first parents is the devil is diametrically opposed to that of Philo, who does not recognise such an evil power in the world, and regards the serpent as a sj'mbol of pleasure (Wisd. ii, 24 ; comp. Philo, De Mundi Opif. in 0pp. i, 38). (6.) The description of the origin of idolatry in this book is totally different from that of Philo (Wisd. xii, xiii; comp. Philo, De Monarch. § 1-3, in 0pp. ii, 213 sq.). (7.) The idea of divine wisdom, which in the centre of this book is different from that of Philo. The author of the book of Wisdom manifests no acquaintance whatever with the trichotomy of human knowledge, nor even with the doctrine of ideas, which forms a most essential and organic part of Philo's system, as is evident from the fact that he makes no allusion thereunto in such pas- sages as i, 3; viii, 19 sq.; ix, 15; and especialh' vii, 22 sq., where it would have been most appropriate, and where it would undoubtedly have been found, had the writer known the points in question.
The force of these arguments against Philo Jiidreus, and yet the unwillingness to relinquish the traditional name, have led many Roman Catholics and some Prot- estant scholars (viz. Lorinus, Bellarmine, Huetius, Drusi- ns, Wernsdorf, Buddens, etc.) to resort to the theory that it was not 'the well-known philosopher, but an older Philo, who either composed the book of Wisdom or put it into its present form. But the fatal objection to this is that the elder Philo was, according to the express testimony of Josephus {Contra Apion. i, 23), a heathen, and could not therefore have written this book.
Still more far-fetched is the theory of Dr. Tregelles, that it was written by an unknown Christian of the name of Philo, basing it upon the passage "et Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta" in the Muratorian canon, which he imagines to be a mistrans- lation of the Greek original, that may have read, Kai )) 'S.oipia SnXofiuii'TOQ vtto ^iKojvoq, instead of virb <I>/- Xo/i' (Journal of Philol. 1855, p. 37 sq.).
Being thus compelled to relinquish the name of Philo in whatsoever form, Augustine would at first have it that Jesus, son of Sirach, was the author of this book {De Doctr. C/tr.n,8), but afterwards retracted his opin- ion {Retractt. ii, 4; De Civ. Dei, xvii, 20, 1).
Faber, again, maintained {Prolusiones de Libra Sap. [Anspach, 1776-77], i-vi, pt. v) that it was written by Zerubbabel, who might justly call himself the second Solomon, because he restored the Solomonic temple. But as all tlie arguments against the Solomonic author- ship are equally to be urged against this theory; and, moreover, as ix, 3 can only be applied to Solomon, and as the whole tone of the book shows that this monarch is meant, Faber's conjecture has not been espoused by any one else.
Neither can the more plausible theory of Lutterbeck {Die neuiestamenll. Leltrbefp-iffe [Mayence, 1852], i, 407 sq.) be sustained, that Aristobulus (flourished B.C. 150) wrote it. Because (1.) He was a favorite of Ptolemy VI Philometor, and would therefore not have inveighed against kings (comp. vi. 1 sq.). (2.) The Jews in Egypt
and were treated with tlie highest confidence, so much so that Philometor and Cleopatra intrusted the govern- ment and the army to Jews (Josephus, Contra Apion. ii, 5), whereas the Jews in Egypt suflfercd under the most grinding oppression when this book was written (xi, 5 sq. ; xii, 23 sq. ; xvi-xix; Grimm, Comment, p. 21). For these reasons modern writers have given up all attem]3ts to discover the author's name.
2. Equally divergent are the opinions of commenta- tors and historians respecting the date of the book, as will be seen from the following table :