The style of the book is very uneven. Some por- tions of it are truly sublime, and will bear comparison with any passages in the best classics ; as, for instance, the delineation of the sensualist (ii, 1 sq.), the picture of future judgment (v, 15 sq.), and the description of wisdom (vii, 22-viii, 1) ; while in other passages the author, as bishop Lowth remarks, "is often pompous and turgid as well as tedious and diffuse, and abounds in epithets, directly contrary to the practice of the He- brews" {Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the llebi'ews, Pra;lect. p. xxiv).
VII. Canonidly and Authority. — Though the book of Wisdom, like the other deutero-canonical books, was nev- er included in the canon of the synagogue, as is evident from the list of the Hebrew Scriptures given in the Tal- mud {Ihdia Bathra, § 14) ; and though it is not found in the catalogues of Origen, .Jerome, Epiphanius, Athana- sius, Cyril, etc., yet there can be hut little doubt that it was lield in great respect among the .Jews, and that the apostle Paul was familiar with its language, as may be seen from the strikiui^ parallels in Kom. ix, 21 to Wisd. XV, 7; in Kom. ix, 22 to Wisd. xii, 20; in Eph. vi, 13-
17 to Wisd. v, 17-19. The next allusion to it, though also not by name, is to be found in the epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians (i; 27 ; comp. Wisd. xi, 22 ; xii, 12); and Eusebius tells us (//«/. Evcles. v, 2G) that Irenasus made use of it in a lost book. Clement of Alexandria quotes it as the inspired work of Solomon with the introductory phrase j) 3f I'a aoipia Xfyti {Strom. iv, IG, p. G09, cd. Potter). It is also quoted as such by Origen {Contra Celsum, iii, 72), Tertullian {Adrers. Va- lent. c. ii), Cyprian {Exhorlat. Martyr. 12), Cyril (Catech. ix, 127), etc. Hence it was declared as canonical by the third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), in the coun- cils of Sardis (A.D. 347), Constantinople in Triillo (A.D. 692), Toledo (A.D. 675), Florence (1438), and in the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1546). With other dentero -canonical writings, it remained in the canon till the time of the Reformation, when Luther first separated it and put it together with the rest of the Apocrypha at the end of the Old Test. Still Lu- ther spoke of it with great respect ( Vorrede avfdie Weis- heit Salomonis in his translation of the Bible, ed. 1534). In the Anglican Church the book of Wisdom is looked upon with still greater favor. Thus chapters xiii, xiv are quoted in the Homilies as the writing of Solomon {Sermon against Pei'il of Idolatry, pt. iii); vii, 11, 16; ix, 13 ; xiii, 1 ; xvi, 8, are cited as the work of the same wise man {Sermons for Rogation Weelc, pt. i-iii) ; iii, 1 ; xiii-xv, are quoted as Scripture {Sermon against the Fear of Death, pt. iii; Against Idolatries, pt. i and iii); and ch. V is referred to as Holy Scrij)tU)-e {Against Wil- ful Rebellion, pt. vi). See Deutero-canonical.
VIII. Text. — The book of Wisdom is preserved in Greek and Latin texts, and in subsidiarj' translations into Syriac, Arabic, and Armenian. Of these latter, the Armenian is said to be the most important; the Syriac and Arabic versions being paraphrastic and inac- curate ((irimm, Einleit. § 10). The Greek text, which, as appears above, is undoubtedly the original, offers no remarkable features. The variations in the MSS. are confined within narrow limits, and are not such as to suggest the idea of distinct early recensions; nor is there any appearance of serious corruptions an- terior to existing Greek authorities. The Old Latin version, which was left untouched by Jerome {Prcef. in Libr. S(d., " In eo libro qui a plerisqne Sapientia Salo- monis inscribitur . . . calamo temperavi; tantummodo canonicas Scripturas emendare desiderans, et stndium meum certis magis quam dnbiis commendare"), is, in the main, a close and faithful rendering of the Greek, though it contains some additions to the original text, such as are characteristic of the old version generally. Exainples of these additions are found: i, 15, Injnslitui aiitem inortis est acquisitio ; ii, ^, Nnlhnii pratuni sit quod non pertranseat luxuria nostra; ver. 17, et^ciemiis qum erunt novissima ill ins ; vi, 1, Melior est sapientia quam vires, et vir pi'udens quam fortis. And the construction of the parallelism in the two first cases suggests the belief that there, at least, the Latin reading may be correct. But other additions point to a different con- clusion : vi, 23, diligite lumen sapientim omnes qui prce- estis populis; viii, 11, et Jades pi'incipum mir(tbnntn,r me; ix, 19, quicunque jMicuerunt tibi domine a principin ; xi, 5, a defectione jwtus sui, et in eis cum abundarent flii Israel Icctati sunt.
The chief Greek MSS. in which the book is contain- ed are the Codex Sinaiticus (N), the Cod. Alexundrinus (A), the Cod. Vaticanus (B), and the Cod. Ephraemi rescr. (C). The entire text is preserved in the three former; in the latter, only considerable fragments: viii, o-xi, 10; xiv, 19-xvii, 18; xviii, 24-xix, 22.
Sabatier used four Latin MSS. of the higher class for his edition: "Corbeienses duos, unum Sangerma- nensem, et alinm S. Theodorici ad Remos," of which he professes to give almost a complete (but certaiidy not a literal) collation. The variations are not generally important, but patristic quotations show that in early