CHAPTER VII.

OF THE BOOK OF WISDOM.

§ 252. Contents.

As Jesus, the son of Sirach, imitated in some measure the Proverbs of Solomon, so also the author of the book of Wisdom imitated Ecclesiastes. In this way he even introduces Solomon speaking.

-The book consists of two parts. 1) In c. i-ix. wisdom is recommended to all, and especially to kings, in order that they may labour to acquire it with the more earnestness, in proportion to the facility of securing it, and to the abundance of the recompense with which it rewards those who seek it. Even if they should happen to be oppressed by adversity in the present life, yet in the future, wisdom will render them happy. while on the contrary foolish and wicked men are miserable now, and will be more so hereafter. (This is the first time that a future life of happiness or misery is expressly mentioned.) This part may be separated into three sections. In c. ivi. wisdom and folly are represented according to their consequences; in c. vii. and viii. Solomon states the methods by which he had sought and found wisdom; and c. ix. contains a prayer of Solomon for obtaining wisdom.-2) In c. xxix. the happiness which wisdom imparts, and the wretchedness into which folly, and particularly idolatry plunges its votaries, are illustrated by examples taken from history. In this part two sections are distinguishable; c. x-xii. containing examples of persons remarkable for wisdom or folly; and c. xiii-xix. comprising various observations in praise of the ardent pursuit of wisdom.

§ 253. Language of the Book of Wisdom.

This book was originally written in Greek, for the style, as Jerome has observed in his Preface to the books of Solomon, partakes of the Grecian eloquence. The Hebraisms which occasionally occur, only prove that the author was a Hebrew, and resembled his countrymen, who scarcely ever wrote the Greek language in its purity. The readings which FABER (Programm. 5-8. in Lib. Sap.) has adduced to prove a Hebrew origin can be better explained on other grounds. R. Moses Ben Nachman mentions a Hebrew text which he had seen; but this was nothing more than a Syriac version written in Hebrew letters.[a]

[a) NACHTIGALL, Uebers. des B. Weisheit, S. 24. f. considers the Greek text as a translation from either the Hebrew or the Chaldee.EICHHORN, S. 194. ff., BERTHOLDT, S. 2280. ff., DE WETTE, Einleit. § 315, and HASSE, Uebers. des B. Weisheit, S. 192 ff. agree with Jahn. Tr.]

§ 254.

The Author and Age of the Book of Wisdom.

The Greek language in which the work is written, and many modern ideas which it contains, show plainly that it is not only much more recent than the time of Solomon, to whom it is ascribed but also than that of Zerubbabel, whom FABER, in his 8th Program, 1776 -1787, considers as the author, and supposes that, as in the book of Ecclesiastes, [a] Solomon is merely introduced as a speaker. The author of the book is unknown. Jerome indeed tells us, in his Preface to the books of Solomon, that some of the ancients affirmed it to be the production of Philo the Jew. But if they meant the Philo whose works are still extant, they were entirely mistaken, for the work is not written in his style; and if they referred to some older writer of the same name, he is altogether unknown to us. There is not sufficient evidence to enable us to determine even the date of the book with accuracy; this only is clear, that in the age in which the author lived the Hebrews were well acquainted with the Grecian philosophy, and therefore it would seem that the book must have been written at the end of the second or the beginning of the first century before Christ. The places which urge wisdom upon the attention of kings,

and those which mention the persecutions of the son or friend of God, xviii. 13. (i. e. the Jewish people,) appear to indicate the age of Antiochus Epiphanes.-Those who have brought down the date of the book to some time after Christ, have advanced no arguments which merit refutation.The conjecture that it has been interpolated by Christians is founded almost entirely upon doctrinal grounds, on the mere assumption that such doctrines as it contains were not to be expected from a Jew.

There are some persons who consider the second part (c. x-xix.) as a separate work, and suppose it to have been written by a different author, or else by the same in the earlier part of his life. [b] But they have not been able to establish their opinion by solid arguments, nor have they noticed the connexion between the ninth and tenth chapters. The difference of style which is urged may be traced to the nature of the subject, which is different in the second part from that of the first. [c] It is not true, as has been supposed, that Solomon does not speak in the second part, for if no express assertion to that effect occurs, it ought to be considered that neither is there any such assertion in the first part, except in c. ix. 7, 8, 12.—Lastly, the argument founded on the difference of ideas and doctrines in the two parts, to which much importance has been attached, is too far-fetched, and is refuted by the fact, that very many of these ideas and doctrines do occur in both parts. For instance, that remarkable appellation "the son of GOD," applied to his people in xviii. 13., (Eπ TW TW πρωτοτόκων ολέθρω ωμολόγησαν Θες υιον λαον ειναι,) has a manifest reference to the son of GOD' mentioned in ii. 18., viz. the man that honours him, of whom it is said, that he will be persecuted even to death. See Germ. Introd. p. 944-947.

If the contents of the book had been produced by assemblies of the learned, which Nachtigal thinks he discovers every where, the character and style of its language would have varied more; not to say, that these assemblies are altogether fictitious.

[a) Comp. 214. notes. Tr.]

[b) HOUBIGANT, Proleg. in Sac. Script. P. II. makes c. x. begin a book distinct from the preceding part.-EICHHORN, S. 144. ff. makes c. xi. 2. the commencement of a separate work. BRETSCHNEIDER concludes the first part with the end of c. xi. DE WETTE, Einl. 313, and BER

THOLDT, Th. V. S. 2259. ff. agree with Jahn, and refute these various hypotheses.BRETSCHNEIDER, Diss. de libri Sapientiæ parte priore c. i-xi. e duobus libellis diversis conflata, Viteb. 1804, and ENGELBRECHT,Librum Sapientia Salomonis vulgo inscriptum interpretandi specimen I. et II. Hafnia, 1816, even subdivide the first part at vi. 8, considering this as a separate work. See DE WETTE, ubi supra, anm. c.) Tr.]

[c) Besides, DE WETTE shows, & 313, anm. d) that there is no real difference between the styles of the two parts. Tr.]

§ 255. Versions of the Book of Wisdom.

The Latin Vulgate version is of higher antiquity than Jerome. It expresses the Greek text word for word, and is therefore occasionally unintelligible.The Arabic version in the London Polyglot is of an unknown age, and it also follows the Greek text closely.The Syriac version in the same Polyglot exhibits the Greek text in the beginning with accuracy, but afterwards it becomes more negligent. The readings of this version which Faber has adduced to prove that it was made from a Chaldee text, are in part errors of transcribers and of the press, in part paraphrastic renderings, and in part susceptible of better explanations on the supposition of their being translations from the Greek.

CHAPTER VIII.

OF THE FIRST TWO BOOKS OF THE MACCABEES.

§ 256. Of the name Maccabees.

It is very evident from I Mac. ii. 4., that the sons of Mattathias had each his own proper surname, and that Judas alone was called Maccabeus, paxxaßanos. Afterwards this appellation was extended to all who in the second century before Christ contended for their religion and country, and thus the title of these and certain other books originated. The name was formerly supposed to have been

who מי כמוך באלים יהוה formed from the initial letters of the words

T:

is like unto thee among the gods, O Jehovah, or □ hx 'p, who

is like God among the gods, which were thought to have been embroidered on the standards of the Jews during their wars with the Syrians, and to have been contracted into one word ' or . But if this were the origin of the term, it should have been written μαχαβαιοι, whereas it is constantly written μακκαβαιοι, as if derived hammerer, a surname given to Judas, as

,a hammer ;מקנה from a מקני

formerly to Charles Martel, in consequence of his heroic actions.

In Arabic also the word signifies not only to perforate a wall,

but also to be prince or chief of the people, and hence

a prince of the people. This is the way in which the term was explained by Isidore of Pelusium, who compared the word saxxaßaos