Sept.,theSyriiicandArabicver8ions,Clem- ent of Alexandria, TertulhaD, etc B.C. cir. lono
50(1
4.50-.sno
222-217 150-130 14&-50
Pubei-
Grotius
Welte, Brack
Gutman, Lutterbeck, Davidson
Griuini
Some ancient fatliers, De Lyra, Lutlier, bishop Cosiu, Gr.itz, etc
A.D. cir. 30-50
All, however, that can be deduced from internal evi- dence upon this subject is that (1) the author of the book was an Alexandrian Jew, or that he resided in Egypt and wrote for his coreligionists in the land of their for- mer bondage, as is evident from the details of the Egvp- tiaii animal-worship (xi, 15; xii, 24 ; xv, 18 sq.); from the involuntary adoption of certain Alexandrian notiims and phrases as shown above; from the allusion to the events in the lives of sundry Jewish worthies without specifying the names of these patriarchs — viz. to the di- recting of the course of the righteous in a piece of wood of small value (i. e. Noah and his family in the ark ; com|). Wisd. X, 4 with Gen. vii, 1 sq.) ; to the preserva- tion of the righteous man blameless unto God (i. e. Noah); to the saving of the righteous man (i. e. I^ot) from the burning of the cities (Wisd. x, 5 sq.; comp. Gen. xix, 15 sq.), which could only be made by a Jew, and only be understood bs' Jews; and from the exalted terms in which he speaks of the Jewish nation, of the permanent obligations of tlie Mosaic law, and of Palestine (Wisd. ii, 12; iii, 8; xii, 7); and from the Haggadic embellish- ments of the Old-Test, narratives, as has been shown in the preceding part of this article. These facts, therefore, completely set aside the opinion of Kirschbaum {Der jiid. A lexandrinismus [ Leips. 1841], p. 52), Weisse ( Ueber die Zulcunft d. evangel. Kirche [ibid. 1849], p. 233), Noak {Der Ursprung des Christenthunis [ibid. 1837], i, 222 sq.), etc., that this book is the work of a Christian hand ; and that (2) he wrote after the Sept. (i.e. Ptolemy II Phila- delphus, B.C. 284-246), for, as we have seen, he quotes the Pentateuch and Isaiah according to this version. He, however, composed it some time before Philo (B.C. cir. 140-50), since it required a considerable period for the degree of development which the religious philoso- phy of Alexandria had attained among the Jews in the interval between the author of Wi-sdora and the writ- ings of Philo. The sufferings referred to in this book (xi, 5 sq. ; xii, 23 .sq. ; xvi-xix) are most probably those which Ptolemy VII Physcon (B.C. 145-117) "heaped upon the Jews in Alexandria (comp. Josephus, Contra Apion. ii, 5 ; see Griitz, Geschichte der Juden [2d ed.], iii, 66). The hypothesis of Dr. Rainold {Cens. Libr. Apocr.), that " it was written in the time of the emper- or Cains, who would have his statue set up and adored in the temple of Jerusalem (Suetonius Vit. Calig. § 22), and that xiv, 16-20 deprecates his blasphemous attempt at self-deification," which is followed by Noak {Der Ur- sprimg des Christenthums, i, 222 sq.) and Griitz {Ge- schichte der Juden, iii, 442), is based upon precarious in- terpretation of this passage. Grimm {Comment, p. 33) has conclusivel}' shown that it gives the writer's opin- ion respecting idolatry, which he, in common with many learned heathen of his day, traces to the deification of man, as is evident from the fact that .several Seleucide- ans adopted the epithet ^inQ (2 Mace, xi, 25), and that Ptolemy Lagi and Berenice, his consort, were apotheo- sized b}' their successors and subjects giving them the
enjoyed the greatest distinctions under this monarch, | title Btoi awrripse, and erecting to them altars and tem-
WISDOM OF SOLOMON
1024
WISDOM OF SOLOMON
pies (Paiilv, Real-KiicijMop. d. class. Altertkumswissen, s. V. •'PtokMiiaiis," Vr, i, 190).
VI. (>ri(/iiutl LaiiytuKje and Styk. — Believing it to be the work of Solomon, nnany of the ancient fathers, and several modern writers, both Jews and Protestants, as a matUT of course, maintained tliat the original language of Wisdom was Hebrew. Kvoii (irotius, though not re- garding it as the production of Solomon, believed it to have been originally written in Hebrew, while Houbi- gant advocated a Helirew original for the first nine chapters, and Bretschneidcr and Eugelbrecht restricted it to the first five cliapters. The erudite Azariah dc' Kossi again would have it that Solomon wrote it in Aramaic in order to send it to some king in the extreme East {.)[eor Enajim [ed. Vienna, 1820], 281 I) ). ISut Jerome had already declared that there was no Hebrew original extant of this book, and that it was originally written in Greek, as is evident from its style ("Socundus [qui Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur] apud Hebra'os nns([uam est, quin et ipse stylus Graecam elo- quentiam redolet" [Aw/i in Lib): Sal.]). This remark is fully borne out by (1.) The numerous compound ex- pressions, especially adjectives (e. g. Ka/cortY''OC> i) 4 ; XV, 4; TrpairojrXnoToc, vii, 1 ; x, 1 ; vivspfiaxoc. x, 20; xvi, 17; comp. also i, 6; ii, 10; iv, 8; v, 22; vii, 1, 3; ix, 5, 15; X, 3; xi, 17; xii, 5, 19; and for unn^ \sy6- ^iiva, xi, 7; xiii, 3; xiv, 25; xv, 8, 9; xvi, 3, 21), which have no corresponding terms in the Hebrew. (2.) The technical expressions — as Trvivfia )'0£|o6i', vii, 22 ; ^aj- Kiiv Kui \iopiXv Sid Tvavrmv, vii, 24; vXi] dfiop(po(;, xi, 17; Trpoi'ina. xiv, 3; xvii, 2 — which are derived from Platonic and Stoical philosophy. (3.) The alliterations, paranomasias, and oxymora which pervade the book (comp. dyicri'/irarf — (ppovtjaaTE — i,i]Ti]aaTf.; iv aya^u- Ti}Ti — aTrXoD/n, i, 1; oyf — ^poTic, i, 10; TrapoStvaw — avvoCuiaio, vi, 22; aS6\it)Q — ft^^ovoif, vii, 13; apya — ipya, xiv, 5; aoiKa — Ci/c)/, i, 8; IciaQ iciottjtoc, ii, 23; arpaTToi' rpomoQ, v, 10; Svvaroi ck cvvaruic, vi, 6; o(Ti(«t" Ti) oaia ('i(Tiw3'/}(T0)'ra£, vi, 10, (c. r. X. ; see Grimm, p. 7), showing beyond doubt that the book was origi- nally written in (ireek. As to the Hebrew coloring of the language, the lexical Hebraisms (e. g. a7rXori;c KapSiag, i, 1 ; pspiQ, KXiypoc, ii, 9; rpi^oi, ii, 15; \oyi- Zfor^oi £(<,• Tt, ii, 1(J; TrXijpovv ^^poj'oi', iv, 13; oaioi rov Beov, iv, 15), the numerous Hebrew parallelisms, etc., these are to be expected from so thorough an Israelite as the writer of this book manifestly was, especially when it is borne in mind that the author breathes throughout the whole of his work the spirit of the Old Test.; that the book of Wisdom is a Hellenistic ver- sion of the same tradition wherein Solomon is represent- ed as having philosophically refuted scepticism and tyr- amiy, of which traces' appear elsewhere in the later .lewish literature; and tliat the author took the ancient Hebrew poetry for his model.