Wisdom
Liber SapientiæIntroductions
Enciclopedia Cattolica
Book of the Old Testament. In Latin it is called Liber Sapientiae, but in the more ancient authors the designation Sapientia Salomonis is also documented, which corresponds to that given by the best Greek manuscripts and writers (Σοφία Σαλαμώνος).
SAPIENZA (in the Bible) - The Wisdom emanating from God. Panel of the Biccherna, painted by Sano di Pietro (1471) - Siena, State Archives.
The writing is customarily divided into two great sections, one didactic (1:1 - 9:18) and the other historical (10:1 - 19:22). It opens with a warm invitation to the cult of wisdom, considered the source of every virtue and the means of drawing near to God. Only the foolish and the impious take no heed of it, but they will be punished (1:1 - 2:24). Opposed to their lot is the happiness of the just in this life and in the next (3:1 - 5:23). …
Haydock
This book is so called, because it treats of the excellence of Wisdom, the means to obtain it, and the happy fruits it produces. It is written in the person of Solomon, and contains his sentiments. But it is uncertain who was the writer. It abounds with instructions and exhortations to kings and magistrates to administer justice in the commonwealth, teaching all kinds of virtues under the general names of justice and wisdom. It contains also many prophecies of Christ's coming, passion, resurrection, and other Christian mysteries. The whole may be divided into three parts: [1.] In the six first chapters, the author admonishes all superiors to love and exercise justice and wisdom. [2.] In the next three, he teacheth that wisdom proceedeth only from God, and is procured by prayer, and a good life. [3.] In the other ten chapters, he sheweth the excellent effects, and utility of wisdom and justice. (Challoner) --- Their authority is surely greater than that of the Jews, (Calmet) whom Protestants choose to follow. (Haydock) --- Before they attack us, they must, however, answer this prescription. (Calmet) --- St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Athanasius, etc., attribute this book to Solomon; and, though St. Jerome and St. Augustine call this in question, they maintain its divine authority. Sometimes the Fathers abstain from urging it against the Jews, because they[the Jews] reject it, for the same reason as our Saviour proved the immortality of the soul, against the Sadducees, from the books of Moses alone, though other texts might have been adduced. The Councils of Carthage, 419, Florence, Trent, etc., declare this book canonical, (Worthington) agreeably to the ancient Fathers. (St. Augustine, Praed. xiv., and City of God xvii. 20., etc.) --- Philo (St. Jerome) the elder, (Worthington; Menochius) one of the Septuagint (Genebrard) might compile this work from the sentences of Solomon, preserved by tradition, as Sirach's son did that of Ecclesiasticus; (Worthington) or it is styled "Solomon's Wisdom," (Septuagint; Haydock) on account of its resembling his works, in like manner as the Second of Kings is called Samuel's, though he wrote none of that book. (Worthington) --- Sixtus (Bib. viii. haer. ix.) and others, maintain, that this was written originally in Hebrew, and some think by Solomon; being translated by the Septuagint. But these go too far. (Calmet) --- The nine first chapters seem, however, to be the production of Solomon, though the latter may have been added by the Greek translator, (Houbigant) who must, therefore, have been divinely inspired. (Haydock) --- The sentiments are very grand, (Calmet) and contain a prediction of the sufferings of the just one, whence we may infer, that the name of the author was originally in the title, like that of all other prophets. The arguments which Calmet adduces, to prove that Solomon was not the author of the first part of this work, may easily be refuted. In the New Testament, that part is frequently quoted, whence we may gather, that it was allowed to be the work of Solomon. (Houbigant, praef. p. 176.) --- Some style this work Panaretos, as being an exhortation to all virtues. (Calmet) --- All the five sapiential books (Proverbs, etc.) are cited under the title of Wisdom in the mass-book. Superiors are here admonished to act with justice, and taught that wisdom is to be obtained by prayer, and by a good life, chap. 9. Its effect and utility (Worthington) form the subject of the latter part. See Apocrypha, vol. i. p. 597. (Haydock)
Douay 1582/1609
AS wel of the auctor, as of the auctoritie of this booke, there haue bene Both the auctor & auctoritie of this booke were sometimes doubtful. diuers opinions among the lerned. But in processe of time, the first is probably discussed, the other is clerly decided by the Church. For concerning the former doubt, Manie ancient Fathers alleage sentences of this Booke, as the sayinges of Salomon. Namely S. Ireneus (apud Eusebium, lib. 5. c. 8. Hist.) S. Clement of Alexandria, li. 5. & 6. Stromat. Origen. ho. 12. in Leuit. & li. 8. in Epist. ad Rom. S. Athanasius in Synopsi, & Orat. 2. cont. Arrian. S. Basil li. 5. cont. Eunomianos. S. Epiphanius heresi 67. S. Gregorie Nazianzen. lib. de Fide. S. Gregorie Nissen. in Testimonijs ex vet. Testam. cap. de Natiuitate ex Virgine. S. Chrisost. hom. 33. & 34. in Mat. S. Cyril of Alexandria li. 10. c. 4. Also S. Cyprian li. de exhortat. Martyrum. c. 12. & li. 3. c. 59. ad Quirin. & li. de Mortalitate. S. Hilarie in Psal. 127. S. Ambrose, li. de Salomone. c. 1. and diuers others suppose Salomon to be auctor of this booke. To whom likewise some of them The same doubt is of Ecclesiasticus. ascribe the booke of Ecclesiasticus. But S. Ierom Praefatione in libros Salomonis testifieth that some ancient writers affirme this booke to be written by Philo a Iew, and the other by Iesus the sonne of Sirach. And S. Augustin very plainly (li. 17. c. 20. de ciuit.) saith, custom preuailed, that the bookes of Wisdom, & Ecclesiasticus, for some similitude of speach are called Salomons: but the more lerned assuredly iudge that they It is most probable, that Philo a Iew writte this booke collecting manie sentences of Salomons. are not his. what then shal we say, seing so manie other ancient lerned Doctors cite them as his. The answer is easie. And sufficiently insinuated by S. Augustin, that these two bookes being like vnto the other three, which are Salomons, were also called his. VVherto we may adde a like example in Argum. lib. Reg. the two first bookes of Kinges, which are called the bookes of Samuel, though he writte not al the first, nor anie part of the second. Moreouer al these fiue are called by one general title Sapiential bookes. In so much that the Church readeth in the sacred Office before al Epistles, taken out of anie of these fiue Fiue Sapiential bookes of the old testament. bookes, not Lectio Prouerbiorum, or Ecclesiastae, &c. but stil, Lectio libri Sapientiae. The solution therfore is very probable, that this booke of wisdom was written by Philo Iudeus, not he that liued after Christ, but an other of the same name, nere two hundred yeares before. And Ecclesiasticus by Iesus the sonne of Sirach. Who not only imitated Salomon, but also compiled their bookes, for most part of Salomons sentences; conserued til their times by tradition, or in separated scrolles of papers; yea they so vtter some sentences in Chap. 7. 8. 9. his person, as if himself had written them. As touching the auctoritie of The Iewes denie these bookes to be Canonical. these two bookes, and some others, it is euident that the Iewes refuse them. And therfore manie ancient Fathers writing against them, spared sometimes to vrge such bookes, as they knew would be reiected. Especially hauing abundant testimonies of other holie Scriptures, for deciding matters of Mat. 22. faith against them. Euen as our Sauiour himself proued the Resurrection of the dead against the Sadduces, out of the bookes of Moyses, which they confessed Exo. 3. for Canonical Scripture, denying other partes, where the same point might otherwise haue bene more euidently shewed. And so S. Ierom in respect of the Iewes saide these bookes were not Canonical. Neuertheles he did often alleage testimonies of them, as of other diuine Scriptures: sometimes with this parenthesis [si cui tamen placet librum recipere] in cap. 8. & 12. Zachariae; other times, especially in his last writinges, absolutly without such restriction, as in cap. 1. & 56. Isaiae. & in 18. Ieremiae. Where he professeth to alleage none but Canonical Scripture. As for al the other ancient fathers They are iudged by very manie ancient fathers, and afterwards defined by the Church to be Canonical Scriptures. here aboue mentioned, ascribing this booke to Salomon, and manie others cited by Doctor Iodocus Coccius (To. 1. Thesauri. li. 6. art. 9.) they make no doubt at al, but that it is Canonical Scripture, as appeareth by their expresse termes, Diuine Scripture, Diuine word, Sacred letters, Prophetical saying, the Holie Ghost saith, & the like. Finally aswel ancient General counsels, namely that of Charthage, an. D. 419. With others, as the later of Florence, and Trent haue declared this booke to be Canonical. And that conformably to the most ancient, and lerned Fathers, as S. Augustin, not only iudgeth himself, but also plainly testifieth (li. de Pradestinat. Et li. 17. c. 20. ••••. Sanct. c. 14.) saying: The sentence of the booke of wisdom ought not to be reiected (by certaine inclining to Pelagianisme) Which hath bene so long publiquely read in the Church of Christ, and receiued of al Christians, Byshops, and others, euen to the last of the Laitie, Penitents, and Catecumes (cum veneratione diuinae auctoritatis) With veneration of diuine auctoritie. Which also the excellent writers, next to the Apostles times, alleaging for witnes (nihil se ad•ibere, nisi diuinum testimonium crediderunt) thought they alleaged nothing but diuine testimonie.
The summe and contents of this booke is an Instruction, and Exhortation to Kinges and al Magistrates, to minister iustice in the comonwealth, teaching The contents. al sortes of vertues vnder the general names of iustice & Wisdom. With frequent Prophecies of Christs Coming, Passion, Resurrection, & other Christian Mysteries. Al may be commodiously diuided into three partes. In the six first Diuided into three patts. chapters, the auctor admonisheth al Superiors to loue and exercise iustice and wisdom. In the next three, he teacheth that Wisdom procedeth only from God, & is procured by prayer & good life. In the other tenne chapters, he sheweth the excellent effects, and vtilitie of wisdom and Iustice.
Cornely
CAPUT V. DE DUOBUS LIBRIS PSEUDOSALOMONICIS 69 paragraphs
I. De libro Sapientiae. 8 19. — De libri Sapientiae argumento , divisione , fine.
222. — Tres libros, quos Salomoni auctori recte attribui ostendimus, in canone Tridentino sequitur quartus, quem inscriptiones editionis alexandrinae (Zop(« Z&Aopgóvro;) versionumque italae (Sapientia Salomonis) , syriacae (Liber magnae Sapientiae Salomonis , filii David), arabicae (Liber Sapientiae Salomonis filii David , qui regnavit super filios Israel) etc. eidem videntur attribuere. Immo ab exeunte saeculo &. in Ecclesia occidentali usus invaluit Conciliorum et SS. Pontificum auetoritate approbatus, ut quinque libri Salomonis in Scripturarum canone recenserentur Ecclesiastico reliquis quatuor addito!. Attamen Patres non latuit « duos illos libros, qui Sapientia et Ecclesiasticus inscribuntur », a Salomone non esse conscriptos, sed « de quadam similitudine Salomonis dici »; quare iidem iuniores scriptores latini, qui quinque libros Salomonis in canone recensent, S. Hieronymum secuti
. librum Sapientiae jeuóexéypagov vocare non dubitant et Ecclesiasticum Siracidae auctori attribuunt?. Nos pseudosalomonicorum nomine ideo illos comprehendimus, ut antiquorum usui aliqua ratione nos accommodemus atque salomonicis eos vere similes esse significemus ; ceterum quaenam Salomonis in priore componendo fuerint partes, infra (298. p. 223 sqq.) inquiremus.
Liber Sapientiae , qui ab antiquis Patribus graecis interdum eodem modo, quo Proverbiorum liber, 4 wavperog cogím vel 4 Üsía cogía appellatur?, titulo ARGUMENTUM suum indicat; integer enim de verae sapientiae origine, effectibus, praemiis agit. Auctori autem sapientia est practica illa Dei divinaeque voluntatis cognitio, qua homo quid Deo acceptum sit edoctus in operibus suis ita dirigitur, ut amicitiae divinae aeternaeque salutis particeps fiat (9,10. 13; 7,15 etc.). In hac sapientia practica, quam etiam eustitiam appellat (1,1 etc), commendanda et in insipientia s. iniustitia vituperanda potissimum quidem versatur, neque tamen speculativam plane negligit, quae proxime ip divinorum cognitione consistit , sed ad creatas quoque res sese extendit, quatenus ipsae hominem ad Deum adducunt (7,15 sqq.; 8,8 etc). Utraque autem haec sopientia, sive practica sive speculativa, Dei est donum, a quo eam expetere et efflagitare debemus; vera enim est participatio increatae sapientiae, qua Deus omnes res condidit et gubernat. Hinc fit, ut etiam de increata sapientia auctor agat, nonnullis autem in locis eam describens illis utitur vocabulis, quae nisi de notionali sapien- Gia i. e. de Verbo Dei intelligantur, apte non explicantur (7,22 sqq.; 9,1 sqq.). Ex dictis satis elucet libro huic nomen Sapientiae aptissime esse inditum, quia de omni fere sapientia agit, vel ut habet Dionystus Cart. « quia de sapientiae nomine, origine, dignitate, actibus et di[- ferentiis, potestate et efficaciis eius tractat diffuse ».
Sed accuratius in sequenti analysi describemus argumentum ; distribuemus autem librum ad externam eius formam potissimum attendentes* cum P. Kilber in duas partes, in quarum priore (1,1-6,23) auctor ipse exhortatur principes ad veram sapientiam practicam sectandam , in altera vero (6,2^-19,20) Salomon, qui loquens inducitur, sapientiae laudes quum ob divinam eius originem tum ob mirabiles eius fructus commendat.
pars exhortatur ad sapientiam sectandam eaque vitanda, quae ei contradicunt 1-5; secunda modum, quo eam adipisci possumus, eiusque rationem et effectus explicat 6-9, tertia eam commendat exemplis ex historia israelitica desumtis 10-19), Kaulen (Einl. Ed. 3 p. 331), Zschokke (Hist. sacra A. T. p. 354) etc. Similiter recentiores protestantici interpretes Grimm Das B. der Weisheit. Leipzig 1860. p. 4, Davidson Introd. I1I. p. 396, Keil Einl. p. 745... At omnes hae divisiones illo laborant incommodo, quod in integro libro de utilitatibus et effectibus sapientiae sermo fiat: quare ex argumento solo parum apte desumi videtur divisionis ratio.
IN PhioRE PARTE (1,1-6,23) auctor ipse principes ad. sectandam sapientiam exhortatur. ; Proposito themate (1,1), quaerendam esse iustitiam (i. e. sapientiam practicam) moniturus 1. describit dispositionem , quae ad eam accipiendam requiritur (4, 2.2 ,23). Quoniam enim non nisi in pium animum intrat (1,2), a.) abstinendum est a pravis cogitationibus, quae Spiritum fugant (1, 3-5), b.) a perversis sermonibus, qui, quum Spiritum non lateant, mortem adducunt (1,6-11), c.) ab errore vitae, i. e. a malis operibus, quibus mors a Deo quidem non intenta, sed a peccatoribus ipsis accersita acceleratur (1,12-16).
d.) Etenim peccatores, qui immortalitate negata omnibus vitiis se dedunt (2,1-9) iustumque opprimunt vilissimaeque morti, ut eum
: tentent, tradere volunt (2,10-90), vehementer errant ignorantes hominem ad beatitudinem aeternam esse creatum, mortem autem (secundam) per diaboli invidiam esse invectam (2,24 - 23).
2. Commendat sapientiam comparatione inter iustorum sortem sortemque peccatorum instituta (3,4 - 5,24).
a.) Iusti, quamquam a peccatoribus affliguntur, felices sunt praedicandi, quia eorum mors non est nisi transitus ad beatam vitam , impii autem punientur (3,4 - 10).
b.) Immo in hac quoque vita impii punientur, quum fructibus careant eorum labores et eorum familia sit maledicta, dum pii, etiamsi forte posteris careant, felices sint et fructibus onusti (3,11 - 4,6).
c.) Ne quis vero piorum in iuventute decedentium mortem obiiciat, ostendit auctor hanc mortem esse beatam , nullo autem modo praematuram aut importunam aut contemptibilem, mortem vero peccatorum omni ex parte esse infelicem (4,7 - 20).
d.) Mortuorum demum iustorum sors erit gloriosa, funesta vero sors impiorum, quippe qui fateri cogantur se in vita iustorum diiudicanda et in aestimando rerum humanarum pretio errasse (5,1-43). Dum enim iusti praemium virtutis accipient, ira Dei in impios exardescet (5,16 -24).
e.) Quae omnia ad reges principesque speciali modo ponis monens eos praesertim exhortatur, ut sapientiam sectentur (6,1 -23).
IN ALTERA PARTE (6,24-19,20) Salomon, qui loquens introducitur, sapten-
Proposito huius partis themate (6,24-27), se nimirum velle enarrare, quid sit sapientia, quis eius ortus, quae eius mysteria, a.) Quum enim homo sit reliquis similis, eam non a natura habet (7,1-6), sed eam utpote rem prae omnibus desiderabilem a Deo efflagitavit atque cum ea accepit omnia (7,1- 10).
b.) Postquam deinde gratiam, ut de sapientia pro eius dignitate dicere posset, a Deo, qui ipsam dedit, humiliter petiit* (7,15 - 21), illam per eius attributa, qualitates, fructus, describit (7,22-8,1),
€.) atque accuratius docet, quomodo permotus sit, ut eam a Deo efflagitaret. Edoctus enim, quod intime cum Deo sit connexa (8,2-4),
* alia bona vel contineat vel superet (8,5-8), maximae praesertim utilitatis sit regibus (8,€ 16), eam desideravit et cognoscens eam 3 Deo solo dari posse, eam ap illo expetiit (8,1721).
d.) Precationem repetit, qua eam a Deo impetravit (9,1 - 19).
2. Ez historia utilitas demonstratur sapientiae (10,1 -19,20), quippe quae non tantum patriarchas ad beatum finem perduxerit, sed integruui quoque populum direxerit, ab idololatria custodiverit, in terram promissam introduxerit.
a.) Quomodo sapientia iustos reddat beatos, insipientia autem poenas attrahat, exempla docent Adami et Caini, Noe ex diluvio servati, Abrahae ab idololatris segregati, Loth ex Sodomae interitu erepti, Iacobi contra Esau et Laban defensi, Iosephi e carcere ad dignitates elevati (10,1- 14).
b.) Idem docent liberatio populi electi ex servitute aegyptiaca et miracula in eius gratiam in deserto perpetrata (10,15-11,4), praesertim si comparantur a.) Aegyptiorum poenae, in quibus Dei iustitia simul eiusque misericordia sese manifestarunt (11,5 -12,2),
B.) et Chananaeorum interitus, in quo iterum sese uilsericordia divina manifestavit, ut tempus poenitentiae illis concederet omnesque ad unius veri Dei cognitionem adduceret (19,3 - 27).
c.) Ex idololatriae aegyptiacae et chanaaniticae commemoratione occasionem arripit auctor, ut de origine, natura, stultitia, poena idololatriae digressionem longiorem inserat (13,1 - 15,49).
«.) Species idololatriae prima, quae elementis et astris cultum exhibet (13,1-9), et altera, quae manuum figmenta colit (13,10-14,7), ita describuntur, ut earum stultitia et malitia innotescant, eisque futurae poenae indicuntur (14,8-11).
f.) Origo idololatriae, quae hominum imagines colit, exemplis illustratur (14,12-20), quantopere moribus noceat describitur (14,
(a) Pro « Mihi autem Zedi/ Deus dicere « etc. (7,15) lege : « mihi autem det Deus » ("Eyuoi àà 5o 6 Oc).
21-31), et exaggeratur indicatis bonis effectibus, quos veri Dei cognitio producit (45,4 - 6).
1-) Terminat autem digressionem denuo idololatriae stultitia descripta (45,7-19).
d.) Ad thema suum reversus ex diversa Israelitarum et Aegyptiorum sorte ostendit, quinam sint sapientiae et insipientiae fructus (16, 1-19,20).
a.) Aegyptii, qui bestias adorabant, puniuntur; filiis Israel animalia erant utilia, et quum a serpentibus vulnerarentur, Dei ope sanati sunt (16,1-14);
B.) Aegyptii pluviis et grandinibus puniti sunt, Israelitis autem manna e coelo pluit (46,18- 29); t1-) Aegyptii, qui peccata sua occultare se posse putabant, tenebris puniti sunt, dum Israelitis lux splendidissima affulsit (47,1-18,4);
8.) Aegyptii, quia Israelitarum pueros-occidere voluerant, primigenitos suos amiserunt, Israelitarum autem pueri servati sunt (18, $-19), et quamquam in deserto Israelitae quoque ob Core seditionem cladem quandam passi sunt, brevis tamen fuit ira divina . (18,20-25).
*.) Dum Israelitae mare rubrum siccis pedibus transierunt, Aegyptii in eo perierunt, atque Aegyptii animalibus ex aqua venientibus cruciati sunt, Israelitis autem a mari aves venerunt, qui eis cibo essent (19,1 - 12).
C) Atque Aegyptii quidem haec omnia passi sunt, quia Sodomitis erant inhumaniores eademque, qua illi , caecitate perculsi ; Israelitis autem (quia et quamdiu verum Deum colebant) omnia cedebant in bonum (19,13 - 20).
224. — DE FINE CONSILIOQUE AUCTORIS interpretes satis consentiunt. Ex argumento enim, quod in practicae sapientiae vel iustitiae fructibus pessimisque impietatis atque maxime idololatriae sequelis enumerandis et describendis fere versatur, auctorem illud praecipue intendisse elucet, ut contribules suos ad priorem sectandam alteramque vitandam exhortaretur. Quamquam enim in priore parte non semel zudices Lerrae (oi xg(vovrec «àv zv), reges et principes (Bxonetc et cópavvot) alloquitur (1,1; 6,1. 9), atque sapientiam in regendis subditis necessariam esse demonstrat (6,1 sqq; 8,9 sqq. etc.), erraret tamen, qui librum regibus principibusque potissimum destinatum esse putaret regumque etprincipum nomine illos designatos videret, qui tunc temporis, quando scriptus est liber, regna provinciasque gubernabant. Etenim longe maior libri pars, quippe quae antiquam historiam iudaicam accurate cognitam supponat, a solis fudaeis intelligi potuit, Iudaeis autem tunc temporis nec reges erant nec principes nec iudices terrae. Quapropter admittamus necesse est, auctorem aut latiore sensu vocabulis illis attributo omnes designasse, qui auctoritate quacunque in subditas familias vel domos pollebant, aut potius compellationibus illis pro ornatu quodam sermonis esse usum. Quemadmodum enim antiqui prophetae in suis vaticiniis non raro exteras nationes compellant, immo integra valicinia ad eas interdum dirigunt, quamquam solis filiis Israel consolandis et exhortandis erant destinata nec unquam ab illis exteris nationibus legebantur, ita auctor noster quoque sermonem quidem suum ad reges principesque dirigit illosque alloquitur, sed eum coniribulibus suis destinat fratresque suos ad sectandam sapientiam exhortatur!. lllo autem tempore Iudaeos ab ethnicis principibus et regibus (Ptolemaeis) oppressos vexatosque fuisse, ex tota fere secunda operis parte (11. 19. 16-19) non immerito colligunt interpretes; lon. gam enim beneficiorum Israelitis in Aegypto degentibus collatorum cum Aegyptiorum plagis comparationem eo potissimum spectare censent, ut Iudaeorum simili modo iterum ab Aegyptiis oppressorum animi ad spem liberationis erigerentur, ne vexationibus victi & veri Dei cultu ad idololatriam deficerent. Quibus omnibus consideratis iure statuimus paraeneticum esse primarium operis finem.
Attamen si ad arctum nexum , quo duo priora capita inter se colligantur, animos adverterimus atque in secundo capite atheos religionisque contemtores perversa sua principia praedicare hominique iusto insidias interitumque moliri audiverimus, vix licebit dubitare, nomine zudicum terrae (1,1) illos simul (quin etiam praecipue) intelligi Israelitas, qui ethnicorum erroribus imbuti cultum veri Dei abiicere coeperant suisque exemplis, opibus, auctoritate etiam contribules suos ad eandem apostasiam seducere conabantur. Quos ut impugnet repellatque, auctor non tantum laetos verae sapientiae fructus describit, sed iis tristes quoque insipientiae et impietatis sequelas continuo opponit. Immo quoniam nonnulli ludaei ad idololatriam iam transierant ad eamque fratres suos allicere voluisse videntur, auctor eam quoque impugnare ab eaque lectores absterrere est coactus. Unde factum est, ut cum paraenetico fine polemicum coniungeret. Sed de his infra (228) accuratius disseremus; interea autem recte asserimus auctorem opus suum ideo exarasse, « ut suos ad amorem sapientiae et perseverantiam in fide exhortaretur, contra infidelitatem et idololatriam praemuniret, in rebus adversis consolaretur, ad spem libertatis excitaret »?.
225. — In libri Sapientiae originem inquisituris praeviae duae quaestiones solvendae sunt, num scilicet unum sit opus illudque integrum atque completum, an ex variis libris ita conflatum, ut complures eius auctores admitti oporteat. Medio enim saeculo 18. C. F. Houbigant, Congr. Orat. , primus libri uxirATEM impugnavit : « Nec tamen putandum est, inquit, librum Sapientiae totum esse unius eiusdemque auctoris, sed potius partem priorem (1-9), in qua exstant et vaticinia et sententiae Salomonis Proverbiis fere similes, esse ipsius (Salomonis), partem posteriorem vero alterius scriptoris, forte eius, qui priorem graece verterat quique addiderit de suo partem posteriorem ». Prioris enim partis stylum pristinam simplicitatem hebraicam redolere censet, in altera autem aliquid tumidi, inflati, obscuri inveniri !. Ulterius progressi rationalistae quidam etiam ideas sententiasque in variis libri partibus inter se pugnare asseruerunt, quare alii cum Houbigant duas quidem partes distinxerunt, sed alteram aut ab 11,9 aut a 13,1 inceperunt, alii tres esse voluerunt auctores, quorum opuscula (1,1 -6,8; 6,9-10,91; 12,1-19,20) quartus inserto novo capite 11. in unum ]librum compegerit, alii demum totum opus anthologiam quandam esse dixerunt e variis dissertationibus conflatam ?.
Quae sententiae haud difficile refutantur. Unitas enim libri non tantum ex interno idearum nexu, sed etiam ex extrinseca omnium partium coniunctione, quae constructione grammatica indicatur, tam clare elucet, ut hodie vix quisquam in dubium eam vocare audeat. Quam arbitrariae vero sint rationes, quibus innixi adversarii liberum discerpseruntt, ipse eorum dissensus manifestat; neque enim de partium distinguendarum numero neque de earum principiis et clausulis inter eos convenit?. Porro ad eorum argumenta quod attinet, adnotemus, styli varietatem, ad quam provocant, si quae in variis partibus concedi potest, ex rerum, quae tractantur, varietate optime explicatur. Rarius quidem in posterioribus, quam in prioribus partibus sunt hebraismi. At quis in historicis alterius partis argumentis parallelismum ubique exspectabit? Frequentior autem parallelismus sua quasi sponte frequentiores hebraismos provocavit, siquidem hoc dicendi genus accuratiorem hebraicorum poematum imitationem postulat. Ceterum mirum in modum varietas styli exaggeratur, atque plerique moderni interpretes multo maiore cum iure ex styli in toto libro identitate unum esse auctorem concludunt, quam ob leves quasdam differentias, quae in omni fere opere inveniuntur, pauci illi adversarii complures esse auctores statuunt. Idem enim in toto libro vere graecus color, quo reliquos alexandrinae editionis libros longe superat, et propter quem S. Hieronymus iam « librum Sapientiae graecam redolere eloquentiam » asseruit; idem ubique homoeoptotorum et paronomasiarum studium; eaedem in omnibus partibus voces constructionesque , quae aliis in libris sacris rarius adhibentur etc.
Quid vero de his argumentis dicemus, quibus Eichhorn suam sentenliam stabilire conatus est? Alteram partem Salomoni non convenire, quoniam idololatria vituperetur, Salomonem enim senem idololatriae fuisse deditum ; in priore parte historiam iudaicam raro adhiberi (10), alteram vero integram historicis narrationibus constare (11; 16-19); in priore parte atheismum et religionis contemtum, in altera idololatriam dici fontem omnium vitiorum (2,1 sqq.; 15,12); in priore virtutem, in altera scientiam Dei appellari radicem immortalitatis (1,12; 15,5); in priore sapientiam commendari, in altera eam, si 14,4 exceperis, non amplius commemorari. — At doctus vir animadvertisse non videtur Salomonem, qui in libro nostro loquitur, esse ?wvenem (8,10), nihil igitur obstare, quominus idololatriam condemnet, quamvis senex ei fuerit deditus. Procul dubio integra fere secunda pars est historica ; sed num forte auctori non licuit sapientiam, quam, ut habet Lyranus, « ratiocinando » in priore parte commendaverat, in altera « exemplificando » celebrare? Porro quo cum iure reliqua, quae affert inter se pugnare dicat, nemo intelliget. Etenim atheismus religionisque contemtus non minus quam idololatria, quum utraque verum Deum negent, fontes vitiorum sunt, atque vera sapientia tum speculativa, quae in Dei rerumque divinarum cognitione proxime consistit, tum practica, quae a pietate et iustitia solo nomine differt, radix est beatae immortalitatis. Practicam vero sapientiam, quam auctor praesertim commendat, a speculativa nusquam separat; statim enim a principio (1,5. 6 ; 3,11 etc.) cogía, quae commendatur, practica est, atque eadem, etsi postea rarius nominetur (14,2. 5), in tota altera parte velut argumentationis fundamentum supponitur.
Haec exempli gratia afferre voluimus, ut quanta cum levitate libri sacri tractentur evidentius appareat; reliquorum autem argumenta, quae non graviora sed leviora sunt erroneaeque textuum nonnullorum interpretationi innituntur, afferre superfluum est 6.
9296. — IvrEGRITATEM quoque libri Sapientiae primus addubitavit C. F. Houbigant; genuinum enim eius titulum deperditum esse coniecit; operi enim, quod vaticinia contineat, auctorem nomen praefigere debuisse!. At librum nostrum, etsi S. Augustinus quoque eum propheticis accenseat?, proprio et stricto sensu non esse propheticum evidens est; vaticinia vero etiam in anonymis V. T. libris historicis et in nonnullis anonymis Psalmis continentur. Demum animadvertas velim opus nostrum secundum probabiliorem sententiam ex salomonicis scriptis esse compilatum (228), compilatorem igitur titulo illo praefixo, quem alexandrina editio eiusque antiquiores versiones exhibent (Zogía XaXop.vroc), originem vaticiniorum satis manifestasse.
Clausulam libri deesse putavit Calmetus, « sive quod ab auctore ad calcem deductus non sit, sive quod absolutus ab ipso ad posteros mutilus pervenerit; neque enim incepta et ad calcem usque libri deducta oratio suo termino clauditur, quo claudendam esse consilium auctoris exigeret »?. Quam clausulam desideret, in commentario indicat eruditus interpres : « Si totum atque universale libri propositum inspicias, rogandus ab auctore videbatur Deus, ut sapientiam, praecipuum suae orationis finem, sibi largiretur, vel ita claudendus liber, ut diceret sapientiam fontem esse illius amicitiae, qua Deus populum prosecutus est, vel denique narranda Dei responsio ad Salomonis orationem » (in 19,20). Post Calmetum autem alii coniecerunt auctorem etiam ex nistoria illius aetatis, quae ab ingressu populi in Palaestinam usque ad Salomonem effluxit demonstrare debuisse, quantae utilitati sapientia populo fuerit; quoniam vero narratio populo terram promissam ingresso abrumpatur, librum aut ab auctore non esse terminatum, aut mutilum ad nos pervenisse *. — Ingenuus fateor me risum continere non posse , quotiescunque video viros graves et eruditos scriptoribus sacris praescribere, quid dicere, quid omittere, quomodo opus inchoare, quomodo illud terminare debuerint. Tres clausulas diversas, quas omnes aptas esse censet, proponit Calmetus, alii quartam proponunt, nonne auctori quintam praeferre licuit? Quid quod Calmeti tres clausulae omnes debilissimo innituntur fundamento ; etenim precationen Salomonis, quae 9,1 inchoatur, usque ad libri finem continuari supponit; rectius autem dicemus eam c. 9. iam terminari atque a 10,1 novam particulam inchoari, in qua Salomon, qui inde a 7,1 loqui supponitur, interdum quidem Deum alloquitur, saepius autem de Deo loquens tertiam personam adhibet (10,5. 10; 11,13; 12,26 sq.; 13,5. 9; 14,9. 22 etc.), id quod in precatione fieri non solet. Ad quartam vero clausulam ab aliis propositam quod attinet, ultimus versus, quo Deus semper et ubique populum suum magnificasse asseritur, longiorem historiae narrationem reddit inutilem, atque totius historiae israeliticae veluti summam proponens aptissima est libri clausula.
Si Grotio fidem adhiberemus, « Christianum aliquem graece non indoctum in graecum vertisse opus nostrum diceremus et cArzstiana quaedam commodis locis addidisse », nam « locutiones quasdam magis Evangelium sapere, quam vetustiora tempora »5. Quaenam a viro christiano addita videantur, Grotius non prodit?, docet autem recens scriptor iudaicus, qui quatuor versus (2,25; 3,13; 4,1; 15,7) a Christianis esse interpolatos asserit, quia doctrinas mere christianas contineant?. — Absit ut doctrinas illis versibus contentas christianas esse negemus; at si ex V. T. libris omnes illos textus, utpote a Christianis interpolatos, auferre vellemus, qui doctrinas christianas contineant, Iudaeis non admodum multa remanerent. Ceterum in versibus obiectis nihil est, quod a iudaico scriptore inspirato tradi non potuerit. Profecto doctrina, quae diaboli invidiam mortem in mundum invexisse tenet (2,94), non minus iudaica est, quam christiana, siquidem ex primis Geneseos capitibus eam hausit antiqua synagoga non dissentientibus rabbinis iunioribus?. Voluntaria virginitas in V. T. incognita quidem erat, at 3,13 et &,1 proxime et directe non laudant nisi castitatem ; iure autem nos, postquam virginitatem in genere castitatis excellentissimam esse virtutem a Christo edocti sumus, laudibus illis etiam virginitatem ornari asserimus; nam licet forte scriptor ipse haec de virginitate valere non viderit, Spiritus S., « qui perscriptorei inspiratum haec verba operatus est, etiam hanc sententiam lectori vel auditori (christiano) occursuram:
esse sine dubitatione praevidit, immo ut occurreret, quia et ipsa veritàti. est subnixa, providit »?. Demum quartus textus (145,7) sensu literali de arca Noe agit, quae benedicta vocatur, quia per.eam Deus secundum iustum suum consilium piam Noe familiam a peccatorum morte servavit. Quae doctrina certe iterum non minus est iudaica, quam christiana. Quod autem auctor illis verbis sit usus (« Benedictum lignum per quod fit iustitia »), quae mystico sensu de ligno crucis aptissime intelliguntur, id profecto non prodit eum fuisse christianum , sed scribentis stylum a Spiritu S. fuisse rectum !9.
7T. H. Graeiz Geschichte der luden vom 'TTode Iuda Makkabi's. Leipzig 1856. p. 494 sq. -
927. — Quibus praemissis librique unitate et integritate stabilitis DE EIUS ORIGINE dicemus atque praeprimis primigeniam eius linguam fuisse graecam ostendemus. « Liber, qui Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur, apud Hebraeos nusquam est, quin et ipse stylus graecam eloquentiam redolet ». Quibus verbis S. Hieronymus duo argumenta innuit, quae graecam libri originem extra dubium ponere videntur, alterum externum, internum alterum. Profecto si hebraicus vel chaldaicus fuisset liber, difficile esset explicatu, illum apud Iudaeos palaesüinenses plane interisse; gravius autem alterum est argumentum ex ipsius libri indole desumtum eoque quaestionem plane definiri arbitramur. Sunt quidem antiquiores nonnulli et pauci moderni interpretes, qui Salomonem operis nostri scriptorem esse rati textum hodiernum nostrum « ex hebraico arehetypo vel conversum esse vel collectum » censuerunt, quoniam « et in eo hebraismi occurrant et carmine eum adstrictum fuisse, ut reliquos Salomonis libros, nonnulli e veteribus memoriae prodiderint » !. Ad rabbinorum quoque aliquorum testimonia provocant, qui de hebraico vel chaldaico archetypo a se viso lo quantur?. Sed rabbinos istos de versione hebraica vel potius syriaca, minime autem de textu primigenio hebraico loqui, eorum verba docent. Porro hebraismi, quos adesse non negamus, vocibus dictionibusque maxime constant, quae continua versionis alexandrinae lectione in usum communem Hellenistarum ita transierant, ut eaedem in libris N. T. graece conscriptis adhibitae sint?; atque parallelismus poeticus in prioribus capitibus satis frequens id unum demonstrat, libri auctorem poemata hebraica optime cognovisse et studiose esse imitatum.
Graecam vero libri originem docent a.) frequentissimae paronomasiae, homoeoptota aliaeque figurae verborum, quae nec fortuito exoriri potuerunt nec ab interprete, nisi archetypum arbitrario et liberrimo modo reddere voluit, studiose inseri*. b.) Accedunt innumera fere vocabula composita , quae hebraice vix reddi possunt ideoque immerito ex hebraico translata creduntur, atque haud pauca alia, quae Graecorum doctrinas cognitas supponunt vel ex graecis philosophis videntur esse hausta?. c.) Totius quoque elocutionis ratio diversa est ab ea, quam interpretes alexandrini tenere solebant. Licet enim in nostro libro simpliciores enuntiationes sint frequentiores neque ea adsit particularum frequentia, quibus Graeci ideas inter se colligare atque longiores periodos efformare student, non desunt tamen verborum comprehensiones artificiosae constructionesque vere graecae?, ita ut stylum graecam eloquentiàm redolere S. Hieronymus iure merito asseruerit.
Quae quum ita sint, librum Sapientiae non esse meram translationem hebraici archetypi pro certo asserimus; alia autem est quaestio, utrum auctor antiquiora scripta hebraica in suo libro componendo adhibuerit annon; quid de hac sentiendum esse videatur statim dicemus.
prologo sui Commentarii Legis : Vidi librum translatum..., videtur mihi, sí non stt translatus, compositum esse a rege Salomone chaldaice, ut mitteret eum ad aliquem regem in extremis Orientis regionibus versantem » etc.
6. Sap. 1,14 Gbov fac(Astov. 19,20 dp£pocla 1pozí. 4,2 dqyGva vixdv et 10,12 áyiva fpaorüevw. 4,2 ropzeiuv. 4,3 ategavogóprtv etc. — Sap. 7,22 nvsüpa votpbv... uovoytvls, xoAopple , Aezxbv , süx[vnvov, vpavov, drjpavrov, giiaqa0óv xz. 11,17 6A» Guoppos. 14,3 rpóvoux etc.
928. — D& Aucron& SAPIENTIAE non paucae propositae sunt conieclurae, quae examine vix ac ne vix quidem sunt dignae. Praeiudiciis enim suis abrepti et erroneis textuum quorundam interpretationibus nixi aliqui eo usque progressi sunt, ut Christianum quendam librum conscripsisse assererent! ; alii nullis omnino argumentis in medium allatis Zorobabelem fecerunt eius auctorem ?. S. Augustinus eundem esse Ecclesiastici et Sapientiae auctorem aliquando coniecit, sed re melius considerata coniecturam suam retractavit?. S. Hieronymus refert « nonnullos veterum scriptorum librum hunc esse Iudaei Philonis affirmasse »; quinam autem veteres illi scriptores sint ignoramus, siquidem in operibus superstitibus antiquiorum Patrum ne levissimum quidem huius opinionis vestigium invenimus*. Tanta vero fuit S. Hieronymi auctoritas, ut, quoniam S. Doctorem in eadem sententia fuisse crederent, non tantum mediae aetatis interpretes omnes, sed etiam recenliore tempore gravissimi quidam viri eandem sint amplexi?; at. immerito. Sapientiae enim liber, quum a N. T, scriptoribus iam adhibeatur (230), Philone antiquior est, in sua doctrina a philonianis placitis longissime recedit?, ab Eusebio et ipso Hieronymo, ubi scripta philoniana ex professo enumerant, omittitur. Quibus argumentis permoti aliqui antiquiorem quendam Philonem ab Iosepho nominatum coniecerunt esse libri auctorem, at Philo senior a Iosepho inter ethnicos, qui de rebus iudaicis scripserunt, enumeratur 7.
Pervulgata antiquitus erat sententia, Salomonem opus hoc composuisse atque hodie quoque aliqui eandem defendunt argumentis non omnino invalidis. Etenim a.) provocant ad titulum, quo in editione alexandrina et in omnibus antiquis versionibus liber inscribitur (222 p. 211.) eumque non minore, quam reliquorum librorum inscriptiones, fide dignum esse censent; b.) SS. Patrum auctoritatem in medium adducunt, qui plerique aut disertis verbis librum Salomoni attribuunt &ut sub Salomonis nomine citant?, monentque etiam rabbinos nonnullos cum Patribus consentire 9; c.) librum ipsum dicunt auctorem suum satis clare indicare; auctorem enim esse censendum illum, qui in opere nostro de se ipso prima persona loquatur, neque ullum esse dubium, quin Salomonem se esse clare asserat!!; d.) non parum autem argumenta haec confirmari aiunt eo, quod libri nostri argumentum eiusque tractandi modus cum reliquis libris salomonicis consentiant, atque illud mentione dignum esse opinantur, quod auctor in ultimis capitibus, ut fructus sapientiae celebret, exempla sua ex antiquiore dumtaxat populi historia desumat; auctorem autem, si post exsilium scripsisset, non minus splendida testimonia ex historia piorum regum Iuda aut reditus ex captivitate desumere potuisse putant.
Aliqua ex his argumentis vi sua non carere fatemur et libentes hanc sententiam amplecteremur, nisi duo obstarent. Graeca enim lingua librum esse scriptum demonstravimus, Salomonem autem graece non scripsisse evidens est. Res quoque ideaeque salomonica aetate recentiores aut commemorantur aut cognitae supponuntur (227). Salomonem igitur libri illius, quem hodie possidemus, auctorem non esse certum est. Plerique igitur moderni interpretes Salomone plane reiecto Iudaeum quendam alexandrinum , qui Ptolemaeorum tempore vixerit, auctorem fuisse autumant, nonnullique, ut nomen proprium afferant, Philoni aut Aristobulo, Ptolemaei VII. Philometoris (180-145) magistro, librum attribuunt. Philonis autem nomen immerito in hac quaestione afferri iam diximus, neque rectius nominari Aristobulum ex mox dicendis (229) patebit. Hoc loco id unum monemus omnes illos, qui Salomoni in componendo hoc libro ullam partem fuisse negant, non satis argumentorum, quae a salomonicae originis fautoribus afferuntur, vim et pondus perpendisse. Quapropter cum multis antiquioribus interpretibus inter illos, qui Salomonem auctorem esse asserunt, illosque, qui librum ad Salomonem nullo pacto pertinere volunt, mediam viam ingredi malumus.
Censemus igitur alexandrinum Iudaeum auctorem quidem esse libri, quem hodie possidemus, sed in illo conscribendo scripta salomonica hodie deperdita adhibuisse ideoque Salomonis personam induere potuisse. « Ut meam sententiam , inquit Bonfrerius, de huius libri scriptore proferam, existimo Iudaeum quempiam, graeci sermonis peritum , librum hunc graece conscripsisse, sed hunc multa ex Salomonis libris esse mutuatum et varias hinc inde sententias collegisse, quas ipse in unum corpus compegerit, nulla fere mutatione alia facta, quam ipsius dictionis et loquendi modo Graecis proprio, ut proinde mirum non sit, siin hoc libro Salomon de se ipso in prima persona loquatur » ??. Simili ratione alii rem explicant ?, ex quibus nonnulli quidem solam « dictionis mutationem » urgentes Iudaeum illum alexandrinum interpretis et translatoris potius munere functum esse, quam veri auctoris, videntur asserere. Rectius autem eum verum egisse auctorem dicemus, qui libris salomonicis ita pro fontibus usussit, ut ex illis novum opus componeret, in quod forte etiam nonnullas sententias aut minores pericopas graece dumtaxat versas transsumsit. Quae statuentes utriusque extremae sententiae argumentis vim, quae eis competit, omnino relinquimus, et utriusque incommoda evitamus.
Ad prioris enim, quae Salomoni librum attribuit, argumenta quod attinet, inscriptio antiqua, cuius auctoritatem non negamus, satis apte etiam & nobis explicatur; etenim /ibrum esse Salomonis per se non asserit, siquidem aliud videtur esse « Sapientia Salomonis », aliud « Canticum Salomonis » aut « Psalmus Davidis ». Neque Patrum auctoritati quidquam detrahimus, sed eam stabilimus. Quoniam enim nonnulli ex insignioribus (SS. Augustinus et Hieronymus) Salomonem auctorem esse diserte negant ^, alii de Salomone auctore dubitant (Origenes, Eusebius 5) , plerique, ubi Salomonis libros enumerant, tres tantum ei attribuunt, iure merito ex aliorum allegationibus nihil aliud deducirnus, nisi argumentum et sententias in genere Salomoni deberi !5, atque hac ratione omnium Patrum dicta conciliamus. Neque argumenta ex libri indole desumta plus probant, quam auctorem libris salomonicis esse usum ex iisque opus suum composuisse : hinc enim hebraismi et parallelismus, si explicatione quadam indigeant, satis explicantur; sufficiens quoque ratio datur, cur Salomon loquens introducatur et exempla historica ex antiquiore sola historia desumantur. At simul alterius sententiae argumenta vim suam retinere evidens est; quoniam enim alexandrinum ludaeum statuimus esse verum auctorem libri, quem hodie possidemus, graecus libri color allusionesque ad res salomonica aetate recentiores difficultatem non creant.
16. Card. Hugonem secutus Lorinus (Comm. Praef. 2.) non inepte comparat modum, quo « solet dici, hoc vel illud dicere Augustinum in libro sententiarum, i. e. quas ex Augustino collegit Prosper ».
929. — Ultimo in loco DE TEMPORE ET OCCASIONE scripti libri dicemus. Quoniam graeca est eius lingua primitiva, iure colligunt hodierni interpretes tantum non omnes, eius auctorem aetate Alexandri M., quippe post cuius expeditiones sermo graecus in Oriente sit pervulgatus, esse recentiorem eumque in Aegypto degisse; namque dum Iudaei palaestinenses, id quod ex Machab. libris constat, patrium sermonem quoad eius fieri potuit retinere studebant, fratres eorum aliis in terris atque praesertim in Aegypto degentes necessitate coacti illam linguam adoptaverant, quae tum temporis ubique fere intelligebatur, i. e. hellenicam. Ptolemaeorum igitur aetate in Aegypto a Iudaeo Hellenista librum Sapientiae esse exaratum consentiunt fere omnes; tempus autem et occasionem coniecturis saltem probabilibus definire licet.
Aetatem enim, in qua auctor scripsit, infelicem fuisse liber satis clare docet. Non pauci ludaei sive falsis graecorum philosophorum doctrinis seducti sive potentium regum timore subacti fide patria relicta legem abiicere, negata animi immortalitate libidinibus omnibus sese dedere, neque iis contenti suos contribules, qui legi fideles inhaerebant, persequi coeperant (2,1 sqq.). Qua in persecutione socios et aemulos habebant idololatras, qui tormentis quoque extremisque suppliciis Iudaeos ad idololatriam attrahere conabantur; idololatras autem hos Aegyptios fuisse quum ex ipsius eorum cultus descriptione tum ex longa plagarum, quibus antiqui Aegyptii a Deo propter similem persecutionem puniti erant, enumeratione iure merito concludunt omnes interpretes moderni; aptior enim ratio, cur auctor in antiquorum Aegyptiorum et Israelitarum sorte describenda et comparanda tamdiu immoretur, dari non potest, quam eum contribules suos in simili tribulatione constitutos consolari et exhortari voluisse.
lam vero primi tres Ptolemaei, quamquam Ptolemaeus Lagi Ierosolymis dolo captis multa millia ludaeorum in Aegyptum captivos adduxerat, Iudaeis non parum faverant, magna privilegia concesserant, permiserant ut secundum legem suam viverent cultumque suum exercerent. Qui rerum status sub eorum successore Ptolemaeo IV. Philopatore I. (222.-205.) mutatus est. Namque quum in templi ierosolymitani adytum intrare ausus gravissima poena a Deo afflictus esset, ira &breptus crudelissimam persecutionem contra ludaeos excitavit teste 3. Mach. libro, qui, licet apocryphus sit et plenam fidem non mereatur, omni tamen auctoritate non est destitutus. Secundum eius relationem prohibuit Philopator, ne Iudaei alexandrini cultum suum exercerent; omnes privilegiis orbatos infimi vulgi et servorum classi adscribi atque folio hederae inusto velut Baccho dedicatos signari iussit, nisi sponte mysteriis orgiisque Bacchi initiarentur. Quibus minis nonnulli quidem perterriti a fide defecerunt, plerique autem mori quam Legem suam relinquere maluerunt. Quapropter rex maiore ira inflammatus omnes totius regni Iudaeos Alexandriam cogi et in hippodromo inclusos pedibus elephantorum conculcari iussit; magno autem miraculo Iudaei liberati sunt !. Quin in hac narratione quam plurima sint ficta et exaggerata non est dubium, attamen eiusmodi persecutionem a Philopatore motam esse, eius mores aliunde cogniti omnino reddunt probabile. Filius et nepos, qui proxime eum sunt secuti , Ptol. V. Epiphanes (205.-181.) et Ptol. VI. Philometor (181.-145.) iterum Iudaeis favebant, adeo ut alter, cuius magister fuerat Iudaeus Aristobulus?, templi heliopolitani exstruendi integrique in eo cultus exercendi facultatem eis concederet. Nova autem persecutio exarsit sub Philometoris fratre, Ptol. VII. (IX.) Physcone (170. vel 145.-117.), qui avi sui Philopatoris crudelitatem aequabat. Ex brevi hoc conspectu elucet, aut Philopatoris aut Physconis regno librum nostrum esse adscribendum ; prioris autem aptius quam alterius aetati eum adscribi cum plerisque arbitramur 3. Nam Philopatoris aetate lusuriam maximam libidinesque in Aegypto viguisse eundemque regem idololatriae addictissimum fuisse idololatriamque promovisse satis constat^, Phvscon autem avi crudelitatem quidem, sed non superstitionem aemulabatur. Prioris igitur regno magis convenit liber, qui una cum Epicureismo idololatriam fortissime impugnat, atque poenis, quibus olim Aegyptii oppressores puniti sunt, beneficiisque, quibus oppressos Iudaeos Deus cumulavit, in memoriam revocatis ludaeos consolari persecutoresque, ut ab incepto desisterent, absterrere studet. Exeunte igitur saec. 3. librum nostrum esse exaratum probabilior tenet sententia.
2. Hinc satis apparet errare eos, qui Aristobulum auctorem operis nostri dixerunt; eius enim aetate Iudaei consolatorio et exhortatorio libello non indiguerunt.
4. Recte Haneberg 1. c. « Die Frage, wie doch dieses Buch zu gleicher Zeit atheistische Genussucht und dann wieder den finstersten Aberglauben des Heidenthums bekàmpfen kónne, ist durch den Character dcs genannten Ptolemaeus, dem sicher eine servile aber einflussreiche Hofpartei entsprach, gelost. Allerdings ist die ganze Geschichte der Ptolemaeer von Philopator an nur allzureich an Beispielen des Luxus, der Despotie und Verlolgungssucht, so dass auch ein spáter lebender Israelite zur Abfassung eines solchen Buches aufgefordert sein konnte; aber es móchte doch schwer sein, eine Zeit zu finden, welche so vollstáàndig alle àussere Anregung zur Entstehung des Duches der Weisheit geben dürfte, wie gerade jene »
930. — Inter deuterocanonicos libros alius non est, quem nostro frequentius integra antiqua Ecclesia pro auctoritate adhibuerit, cuius : proinde divina inspiratio et canonicitas pluribus et certioribus testimoniis demonstretur, etsi allusiones, quae in N. T. libris satis frequentes sunt et clarae, prorsus omittamus !.
Ad antiquiorum Patrum testimonia, ut contra Massilienses divinam Sapientiae auctoritatem stabiliret, iam provocavit S. Augustinus. Etenim « repudiari non debuit, inquit, sententia libri Sapientiae, qui meruit in Christi Ecclesia de gradu lectorum tam longa annositate recitari et ab omnibus Christianis, ab episcopo usque ad extremos laicos, cum veneratione divinae auctoritatis audiri... Oportet ut istum librum Sapientiae omnibus tractatoribus anteponant, quoniam eum sibi anteposuerunt etiam temporibus proximis Apostolorum egregii tractatores, qui eum testem adhibentes nihil se adhibere nisi divinum testimonium crediderunt ». Quapropter etiam S. Doctor sacrorum librorum canonem statuens libros Sapientiae et Ecclesiastici, postquam Salomoni auctori eos deberi negavit, propheticis libris adnumerandos esse docet, « quoniam tn auctoritatem recipi meruerunt »?. Ut quo cum iure S. Augustinus haec asserat , clarius et evidentius appareat, ex innumeris, quae praesto sunt, testimoniis pauca afferemus.
Ab Ecclesia occidentali incipientibus primus testis est S. Clemens Rom., qui saepius quidem ad librum nostrum alludit, sed semel ad verbum fere textum eius adhibet?. Saeculo insequente Canon Muratorianus » Sapientiam ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scriptam » post N. T. libros ita enumerat, ut eam in eodem auctoritatis gradu habuisse videatur; atque circa idem tempus S. Irenaeus non tantum teste Eusebio libellum variarum disputationum edidit, » in quo Sapientiae Salomonis mentionem facit et quasdam sententias ex illa adducit » , sed etiam in praecipuo suo contra haereses opere non semel eius verbis utitur; S. Irenaei autem discipulus S. Hippolytus Sapientiae verba tamquam « a propheta » dicta allegat*. Quemadmodum in romana et in gallicana ecclesiis, ita in africanis quoque liber noster divina auctoritate gaudebat. Tertullianus enim eius testimoniis utitur ad Marcionem et Valentinianos confutandos, S. Cyprianus omnibus illis formulis , quibus soli libri inspirati allegari solent ( « Scriptura divina », « Spiritus S. docet per Salomonem » etc.), ea frequenter affert, atque eadem ratione Lactanttus, quem utpote in Africa ab Arnobio institutum Afris adnumerare licet, Salomonem inter prophetas recenset, quia » ita descripsit nefarium illud consilium ab impiis initum contra Deum, ut plane interfuisse videatur »*. Ex aliis testibus occidentalibus, Augu stino antiquioribus aut aequalibus, nominasse sufficiet S. Hilarium Pict., Luciferum Calarit., S. Ambrosium, S. Paulinum , atque ipsum S. Hieronymum, qui quamvis Salomonis Sapientiam « non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam » afferri asserat, sibi non constans librum nostrum non aliter, quam reliquos libros sacros, adhibuit 9,
Neque minus frequens Sapientiae Salomonis usus fuit in Ecclesia orientali. Clemens Alezx., eam « divinam » appellavit eiusque verba velut « a Veritate per Dominum » dieta (à dX0sx ux co Kugíou) affert?. Origenes quidem, ut difficultatem quandam fugeret, « librum Sapientiae non ab omnibus in auctoritate haberi » monuit, sed alibi eiusmodi dubitatione spreta eum tamquam « Sapientiam Dei » « divina eloquia », « propheticas praedictiones, » « prophetae verba » etc. citat $. Ex Origenis autem discipulis et amicis TAeognostus Alez. in paucissimis, quae supersunt, fragmentis eam adhibet et Eusebius Caes. eam « Scripturam » appellat eiusque « divinis eloquiis » utitur; atque ex eius adversariis S. Methodius quoque eam « Scripturam » appellat in eaque « S. Spiritus verba » invenit ?. Contra Arianos eam allegat S. Athanasius , una cum SS. Petri et [acobi testimoniis eam coniungit in quaestione dogmatica, velut « prophetae vaticinia » eam affert in epistolis festalibus, atque semel dumtaxat ei minorem auctoritatem attribuere videtur ?, Contra haereticos quoque aut in dogmaticis tractatibus eam adhibent SS. Epiphanius , Basilius M. , Gregorius Naz., Didymus Alex., neque minorem auctoritatem ei attribuit TheopAilus Alex. , quam magnus ille antiochenus Doctor, S. CArysostomus , quem Theophilus tam inique persecutus est !!. Omissis illis, qui S. Augustino sunt recentiores, coronidis gratia addamus, in epistola synodali episcoporum Aegypti, quam S. Athanasius suae Apologiae contra Arian. inseruit, et in epistola synodi Sardicensis , quam Theodoretus conservavit, librum nostrum pro auctoritate citari ??.
latione) of the Logos-doctrine of Iohn the apostie. Compare 8,5 sqq. with Iohn 1,1, and 9,1 with Iohn 1,3. Compare Sap. 16,5 sqq. with Iohn 3,14. 15; Sap. 13.-15. with
Cornelius a Lapide
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF WISDOM. ARGUMENT 7 paragraphs
Three things must be premised here in the usual manner: first, concerning the authority of the book; second, concerning the author; third, concerning the argument.
IT IS ASKED therefore first, whether Wisdom is a canonical book of Holy Scripture? The Jews and heretics deny it, indeed some Catholics also, such as Lyra and Cajetan: the Jews, because in this book, chapter II, verse 20, the death of Christ is predicted, to be inflicted upon the cross by impious Jews: the heretics, because, while this book commends chastity, good works, martyrdoms, merits and rewards; it is opposed to their contrary heresies; whence Kemnitius rejects it in his Examination of the Council of Trent, session IV; indeed Calvin, in book I of his Institutes, chapter XI, § 8, writes that he found a falsehood in the book of Wisdom, namely concerning the inventor of idolatry, who in chapter XIV, verse 15, is said to have been a father mourning a son snatched from him by death; which to Calvin is Scripture unworthy of the Bible, and worthy of ashes: but this must be treated more fully in chapter XIV.
But I respond and say: It is of faith that the book of Wisdom is a Canonical Scripture: it is evident, because thus the Council of Florence defined it in the Union of the Armenians, and the Council of Trent, session IV; the Council of Carthage III, chapter XLVII; the Council of Toledo XI in the Profession of Faith, the Council of Sardica according to Theodoret, book II of his History, chapter VIII, the Council of Tribur, chapter XXXIV, the Council of Pisa, chapter I, the Second Council of Nicaea, act. 4.
Hence Christ and the apostles borrowed testimonies from the book of Wisdom, equally as from other canonical books: for from Wisdom, chapter III, verse 7: "The just shall shine," Christ cites that passage in Matthew, chapter XIII, verse 43: "Then shall the just shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." Again, Matthew, chapter XXVII, verse 43, reports that which is found in Wisdom II, 13: "He calleth himself the son of God;" and verse 18: "For if he be the true son of God, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hands of his adversaries." Paul also, to the Romans, chapter XI, verse 34, brings forth that passage, Wisdom IX, 13: "For who of men is there that can know the counsel of God? or who shall conceive what the Lord willeth?" And to the Ephesians, chapter VI, verses 13 and 17, he draws from that which is found in Wisdom,
chapter V, verses 18 and 19: "He will take justice as an invincible shield, and will arm creation to repel his enemies: he will put on justice as a breastplate, and will take for a helmet certain judgment, he will take equity as an invincible shield." The same author, in Hebrews I, 7 and 11 and elsewhere, alludes to the sayings of Wisdom, chapters IV, VI, VII and IX.
The same do the Greek and Latin Fathers, who cite Wisdom as divine Scripture, indeed as the book of Solomon. I shall cite their passages in Question II; for now it suffices to cite the opinion of St. Augustine alone, who in book II of his work On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter XIV, and in book II of his work On the Creed, writes thus: "The opinion of the book of Wisdom ought not to have been rejected, which merited to be recited in the Church of Christ for so long a span of years from the rank of the Church's readers, and to be heard by all Christian bishops down to the humblest lay faithful, penitents, and catechumens, with reverence for divine authority." Wherefore vain is the exception of Cajetan, saying that the book of Wisdom is called canonical by the Fathers, that is, regular, because it avails for the edification of the faithful, but not for establishing the dogmas of faith: for divine Scripture avails for both, such as the Fathers say the book of Wisdom to be. See Melchior Cano, book II of his work On the Places, chapter II.
Moreover, St. Athanasius in his Synopsis, St. Epiphanius in his work On Weights and Measures, St. Jerome in his Prologue Galeated, and in epistle 115, and in his commentary on Zechariah, chapters VIII and XI, and St. John of Damascus, book IV of his work On the Faith, chapter XVIII, assert that Wisdom is not in the canon of the Hebrews, and in their time had not yet been received by the Church as a canonical book, yet to be read in the Church for the edification of the people. Wherefore this book is not protocanonical, that is, of the first class of Holy Scripture, such as those concerning whose authenticity there was never doubt; but deuterocanonical, that is, of the second class, such as those concerning whose authenticity there was doubt at some time, and afterwards the whole Church, having examined the matter, admitted them into the canon. Hear St. Augustine, book II of his work On Christian Doctrine, chapter VIII: "Those two books, one which is called Wisdom, and the other which is called Ecclesiasticus, because they merited to be received into authority, among the prophets"
COMMENTARY ON THE SONG OF SONGS, CHAPTER VIII 1 paragraph
the world, namely all nations, whom I diligently cultivate in Christian faith and piety through my prelates and pastors, and therefore in like manner from that thousand silver pieces, that is, the greatest fruit and price, I gather, and offer it to my Christ; "a thousand therefore of thine are peaceable," in Hebrew, a thousand of thine, O Solomon, that is, these thousand silver pieces owed to thee, as being born and produced from thy grace; "and two hundred to them that keep the fruit thereof," as if to say, To the Prelates, who have cultivated this vineyard, is owed and shall be given a twofold reward, namely the glory of soul and body, on account of the observance of the ten precepts of the Decalogue in heart and deed both in themselves and in their subjects, doubled a hundredfold, that is, in every way absolute and perfect: for a hundred doubled makes two hundred.
THE VOICE OF THE BRIDEGROOM 1 paragraph
VERSE 13. THOU THAT DWELLEST IN THE GARDENS, THE FRIENDS HEARKEN: MAKE ME TO HEAR THY VOICE. — Here Christ the Bridegroom is introduced in a pastoral manner, as it were, whose Bride, devoted to chastity and meditation, dwells like a rural nymph in gardens and vineyards, and cultivates them. The sense is, as if Christ were to say: I have heard, O my Church my Bride, thy sighs yearning toward heaven, but hidden and obscure; wherefore I wish that thou wouldst utter them clearly: for my friends and thine, that is, the angels, eagerly desire to hear them; I shall therefore make thee obtain the fulfillment of thy vows: ask, and thou shalt obtain: speak, and thou shalt be heard: sigh toward heaven, and I shall lead thee there, for already the end of the world is at hand, and the day of judgment and of blessed resurrection.
THE VOICE OF THE BRIDE 2 paragraphs
VERSE 14. FLEE, MY BELOVED, AND BE LIKE TO THE ROE, AND TO THE YOUNG HART UPON THE MOUNTAINS OF SPICES. — which in chapter II, verse 17, are called the mountains of Bether, or Bethel, that is, the house of God, namely heaven, as if to say: Flee, that is, with the utmost speed like fleeing roes and young harts from this foul and stinking earth, O Christ, betake thyself to the fragrant mountains of spices, that is, to heaven, and me, I beseech thee, snatch away with thee, that there we may mutually enjoy one another in blessed eternity: just as roes and young harts, when they flee from hunters, snatch away their young with them, nor do they flee without them to the mountains of spices, such as are in Judaea, Lebanon, Syria and the East. Whence the word flee can be taken for make me flee, by a Hebraism, whereby the Qal is put for the Hiphil.
"Flee, be silent, rest (St. Arsenius). Flee to the mountains of spices, to the hills of blessed ETERNITY. How blessed, how blessed is ETERNITY!" "One night (of cold) we shall exchange for eternal age," St. Basil, homily On the Forty Martyrs. "Age blesses angels, time blesses men, God blesses with his own blessed eternity." The Angelic Doctor, I Question X: "O truly blessed kingdom, lacking death, free from end, to which no times succeed through eternity, where continuous day without night knows not how to have time; where the victorious soldier, joined with those hymn-singing choirs of angels, sings to God without ceasing the Song of Songs of Sion, the noble head embraced by a perpetual crown!" says St. Augustine in the Meditations chapter XXII.
ARGUMENT 8 paragraphs
Three things must here be premised in the usual manner: first, concerning the authority of the book; second, concerning the author; third, concerning the argument.
IT IS ASKED therefore first, whether Wisdom is a canonical book of Holy Scripture? The Jews and heretics deny it, indeed some Catholics also, such as Lyra and Cajetan: the Jews, because in this book chapter II, verse 20, the death of Christ is predicted, to be inflicted upon him on the cross by impious Jews: the heretics, because, while this book commends chastity, good works, martyrdoms, merits and rewards; it is opposed to their contrary heresies; whence Kemnitius rejects it in his Examination of the Council of Trent, session IV; indeed Calvin, in his Institutes book I chapter XI, § 8, writes that he found a falsehood in the book of Wisdom, namely concerning the inventor of idolatry, who in chapter XIV, verse 15, is said to have been a father mourning a son snatched from him by death; which to Calvin is Scripture unworthy of the Bible, and worthy of ashes: but this must be treated more fully in chapter XIV.
But I answer and say: It is of faith that the book of Wisdom is canonical Scripture: it is evident, because thus the Council of Florence defined it in the Union with the Armenians, and the Council of Trent, session IV; the Council of Carthage III, chapter XLVII; the Council of Toledo XI in the Profession of Faith, the Council of Sardica according to Theodoret, book II of History chapter VIII, the Council of Tribur, chapter XXXIV, the Council of Pisa, chapter I, the Second Council of Nicaea, act 4.
Hence Christ and the apostles borrowed testimonies from the book of Wisdom, equally as from other canonical books: for from Wisdom chapter III, verse 7: "The just shall shine," Christ cites it in Matthew chapter XIII, verse 43: "Then shall the just shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." Again, Matthew, chapter XXVII, verse 43, reports that which is found in Wisdom II, 13: "He nameth himself the son of God;" and verse 18: "For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his adversaries." Paul also, to the Romans, chapter XI, verse 34, brings forth that passage, Wisdom IX, 13: "For who of men is there that can know the counsel of God? or who can think what the will of God is?" And to the Ephesians, chapter VI, verses 13 and 17, he draws from that which is found in Wisdom
chapter V, verses 18 and 19: "He will take justice as an invincible shield, and will arm creation to repel his enemies: he will put on justice as a breastplate, and will take for a helmet certain judgment, he will take equity as an invincible shield." The same, Hebrews I, 7 and 11 and elsewhere, alludes to the sayings of Wisdom, chapters IV, VI, VII and IX.
The same do the Greek and Latin Fathers, who cite the Wisdom as divine Scripture, indeed as a book of Solomon. I shall cite their passages in Question II; for now it suffices to set forth the opinion of St. Augustine alone, who in book II of On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter XIV, and in book II of the Creed, writes thus: "The opinion of the book of Wisdom ought not to have been rejected, which merited in the Church of Christ to be recited for so long a span of years from the rank of the Church's readers, and to be heard by all Christian bishops down to the humblest lay faithful, penitents, and catechumens, with reverence for divine authority." Wherefore vain is the exception of Cajetan, saying that the book of Wisdom is called canonical by the Fathers, that is, regular, because it avails for the edification of the faithful, but not for establishing the dogmas of faith: for divine Scripture avails for both purposes, such as the Fathers say the book of Wisdom to be. See Melchior Canus, book II of the Places, chapter XI.
Moreover, St. Athanasius in the Synopsis, St. Epiphanius in the book On Weights and Measures, St. Jerome in the Helmeted Prologue and epistle 115, and in Zechariah, chapters VIII and XI, and Damascenus, book IV of the Faith, chapter XVIII, assert that Wisdom is not in the canon of the Hebrews, and in their time had not yet been received by the Church as a canonical book, yet to be read in the Church for the edification of the people. Wherefore this book is not protocanonical, that is, of the first class of Holy Scripture, such as those concerning whose authenticity there was never doubt; but deuterocanonical, that is, of the second class, such as those concerning whose authenticity there was doubt at some time, and afterwards the whole Church, having examined the matter, admitted them into the canon.
Hear St. Augustine, book II of Christian Doctrine, chapter VIII: "Those two books, one which is called Wisdom, and the other which is called Ecclesiasticus, because in
ARGUMENT ON WISDOM 2 paragraphs
whose chorus, they said the book which is entitled Wisdom of Solomon to be, just as also Proverbs;" for thus Rufinus translated the words of Eusebius from Greek into Latin. Third, because the Author himself of the book in chapter IX, 7, calls himself a king and builder of the temple, who can be none other than Solomon: "Thou, he says, didst choose me king of thy people, etc., and thou didst say me to build a temple in thy holy mount."
But it is far more true that Solomon did not compose this book, first, because, if this book were Solomon's, it would certainly have been known to the Hebrews, and placed in the canon of Holy Scripture; but now it is neither in the Hebrew canon, nor has it been seen by anyone in Hebrew: for there is no one who asserts that he has seen it in Hebrew, and none of the ancients (except one Isidore, who is later) asserted that it was written in Hebrew, as St. Jerome and others asserted of the Gospel of St. Matthew: whereas on the contrary Ecclesiasticus was seen in Hebrew by Jesus son of Sirach the younger, inasmuch as he professes in the Prologue that he translated it from Hebrew into Greek. Second, because this book appears to have been written originally in Greek: for it has the flavor of Greek eloquence, as St. Jerome testifies in the Prologue to the books of Solomon: just as conversely Ecclesiasticus, being translated from Hebrew into Greek, has more of the Hebrew phrase and simplicity than the Greek. Compare this book with Proverbs, and you will see how great is the distance of style and phrase, and especially that here there are elegant continuous and connected discourses, whereas in Proverbs there are disconnected sentences, which have no order or connection among themselves, so that plainly these two books appear to have been written by different authors. Add that Solomon is not the author of this book, which is certainly gathered from the fact that the author, chapter XV, verse 14, says that the enemies of the people of God, namely the Egyptians, ruled over them. But in the time of Solomon no one ruled over Israel except Solomon, who both dominated the neighboring nations or was bound to them by a treaty of friendship. This book was therefore written in the time of Ptolemy Lagus: for he oppressed Judea. Third, because the ancients count only three books of Solomon, namely Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs: thus Amphilochius bishop of Iconium in a Poem on the Books of Holy Scripture to be Read, Isidore of Pelusium, book IV, epistle 40, St. Jerome, epistle to Paulinus, which is prefixed to the Bibles, and others. Fourth, because thus many and most weighty authors judge, such as Lyra, Hugo, Dionysius, Abulensis, Jansenius, Driedo, Melchior Canus, Michael Medina, Alphonsus a Castro, Alphonsus Curiel, Paul of Palatio, Lorinus, Pamelius, George Ederus, Didacus, Covarruvias, book IV of Miscellaneous Resolutions, chapter XIV, Adrian Finus, Genebrardus and others, whom our Pineda cites and follows, Preface to Ecclesiastes, chapter II, number 20. Indeed St. Augustine asserts this to be the constant and common sense of the faithful: I shall shortly recite his words. Finally, the author of this book alludes from time to time to the fables of poets, who were all far later than Solomon: thus chapter I, verse 14, he
ARGUMENT ON WISDOM 6 paragraphs
senses: "Nor the kingdom of the underworld on earth," he alludes to the fable of Pluto and Dis, who is feigned by the poets to be king of the underworld, and is said to have extended the rights of his dominion from the underworld to earth. Again he alludes to the rites of the gentiles, and when he says, cap. II, vers. 8, according to the opinion of the Epicureans: "Let us crown ourselves with roses:" for rose-wreaths were not among the Hebrews in the time of Solomon, indeed not even in the time of Isaiah and the Babylonian captivity, as Tertullian holds, lib. De Corona militis, cap. IX; those therefore seem to have come down to the Hebrews in a later time through commerce with the gentiles. Thus cap. XVIII, vers. 13, in the Greek he names Orcus, and alludes to Lethe, which is introduced by the poets as a river of the underworld bringing to the dead coming there forgetfulness of all things, and he asserts that darkness came forth from Orcus upon Egypt; and cap. ult. vers. ult., he calls manna in the Greek ambrosia, which is feigned by the poets to be the food of Jupiter and the gods. The Syriac version clearly indicates this opinion, when it prefixes this title to the book: The Book of Great Wisdom of Solomon himself, son of David, concerning which doubt was raised, as if some wise man from among the Hebrews had written it in the prophetic spirit, having placed it under the name of Solomon, or had composed it: and it was received, namely held as canonical. The Arabic has it thus: The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, son of David, who reigned over the children of Israel.
To the first St. Jerome responds, in the Prologue, that that inscription in the Greek codices is false: "Another," he says, "ψευδεπίγραφος, that is falsely inscribed, which is inscribed Wisdom of Solomon;" and soon after: "Among the Hebrews it does not exist anywhere, and the style itself smells of Greek eloquence, and some of the ancient writers affirm this to be the work of the Jew Philo."
To the second it is answered that the Fathers cite this book by the name of Solomon for the same reasons for which they attribute Ecclesiastes to Solomon, which I have recited in the Proem. in Eccles., and especially because the author of this book wrote it in the name of Solomon, and assumes his person, and introduces him speaking and teaching. Just as Plato inscribes his Dialogues by the name of Socrates, Gorgias, Protagoras, Timaeus, etc., because he introduces them speaking; and Xenophon inscribes his work Cyrus, or the Cyropaedia; and Cicero inscribes the book De Claris oratoribus Brutus, who excelled among orators. Thus therefore this book is ascribed to Solomon, because Solomon is here introduced speaking, who by the opinion of all was the wisest of mortals, and, as he himself says, the high priest of wisdom, the heart of Minerva, the eye of prudence, the mouth of Themis, the marrow of counsel, the soul of Scripture. Eusebius teaches this expressly, lib. XI Praep. cap. V: "Moved by this reason," he says, "he who inscribed the book of Wisdom to his person (namely of Solomon): he himself gave me true knowledge of the things that are," etc., and he proceeds to cite the words which are found Wisdom VII, 17. Thus also Origen in Joan. tom. XX: "The book of Wisdom," he says, "is inscribed to Solomon." Therefore this book was written,
not by Solomon, but by another in the person of Solomon; whence also St. Thomas in I II, Question CXIII, article 3, to 2, says that in this book the discourse is from the person of Solomon. The same thing is expressly taught by Alphonsus Curiel, Controversy 2 in the book of Wisdom. Indeed, St. Augustine, book II On Christian Doctrine, chapter VIII, thus says: "Those two books, the first which is called Wisdom, and the other which is called Ecclesiasticus, are said to be from a certain likeness of Solomon; for Jesus son of Sirach is most constantly reported to have written them:" and book XVII On the City of God, chapter XX, concerning the same books, he says: "But those other two, one of which is called Wisdom, the other Ecclesiasticus, on account of a certain similarity of eloquence, obtained the custom of being said to be Solomon's; but that they are not his own, the more learned do not doubt." It is added that the author of Wisdom imitated Solomon, and his thoughts, perhaps also sentences and words scattered in the Hebrew books of that age, collected them, arranged them, and expressed them in Greek phrase and style, as is evident to one comparing chapter VII and IX of Wisdom with those things which are said of Solomon in III Kings III, I Paralipomenon XXVIII, 2, Proverbs VIII, etc. For Solomon spoke three thousand parables, and five thousand songs, as is evident from III Kings IV, 32, which all cannot be contained in Proverbs, nor in Ecclesiasticus, nor in the Canticle; therefore a part of them can be contained in Wisdom. Thus think Bellarmine, book I On the Word of God, chapter XIII, Possevinus, in the Sacred Apparatus, under the word Solomon, Adrian Finus, book VI The Scourge of the Jews, chapter XIV, and others. To Eusebius I reply that his words were wrongly translated by Rufinus: for in Greek they read thus: "Not only he himself, but also Irenaeus, and all the chorus of the ancients, called the Proverbs of Solomon wisdom replete with every virtue," which word for word in Latin sound thus: Not only he himself, but also Irenaeus, and all the chorus of the ancients, called the Wisdom of Solomon, replete with every virtue, the Proverbs; and so Eusebius does not speak of the book of Wisdom, but of the Proverbs of Solomon, and he says that they are called by many Wisdom replete with every virtue, that is, treating of every virtue: whence also the Church in the divine Office reciting the Proverbs of Solomon, for example "The Lord possessed me," from chapter VIII, "a strong woman," from chapter XXXI, prefixes: "A reading from the book of Wisdom."
To the third I have already said that the book was written indeed by another, but in the person of Solomon, and from many thoughts of Solomon, such as those proposed in the argument.
THE SECOND opinion is that of St. Augustine, book II On Christian Doctrine chapter VIII, and book XVII On the City of God chapter XX, where he writes that it is a constant opinion that the author of the book of Wisdom, equally as of Ecclesiasticus, is Jesus son of Sirach, as is evident from his words already recounted; whence each book is called by many Wisdom: the same opinion is held by St. Isidore and Theodoret in Lipomanus, in Exodus chapter XVI. But St. Augustine himself retracts this opinion, book II of Retractions chapter IV: "Concerning the author of the book, he says, which many call the Wisdom of Solomon,
ARGUMENT ON WISDOM 5 paragraphs
because this book is cited by St. Clement the Pontiff, epistle 1, and by St. Dionysius the Areopagite, chapter IV On Divine Names, as sacred, divine and ancient: but St. Dionysius, equally as St. Clement, was a contemporary of Philo, indeed the book of Wisdom is cited by Christ and the apostles, who preceded Philo, as I showed in Question I. Fifth, because St. Jerome, in the book On Illustrious Men, and Eusebius, book II of History chapter XVII, weaving together a catalogue of the books of Philo, make no mention of the book of Wisdom.
that this also, like Ecclesiasticus, Jesus son of Sirach wrote, nor is it as certain as I said, I afterwards learned, and I found it altogether more probable that he is not the author of this book."
THE THIRD opinion is that the author of this book is Philo the Hebrew, who lived a little after Christ under the emperor Caius Caligula, and went on an embassy to him on behalf of the Jews; but being repulsed by him, he turned to his companions and said: "Let us be of good courage, for God will be propitious to us, since Caius is hostile," as Josephus reports, book XVIII of Antiquities chapter X. For this Philo was indeed a learned and eloquent man, and published many books on Scripture, and is altogether moral and pious, such as is also the author of Wisdom; whence St. Jerome in the Prologue says: "Some of the ancient writers affirm this to be the work of the Jew Philo." Thus think Lyra, Dionysius, Galatinus book I On the Mysteries of Faith chapter IV, Ludwig Vives in chapter XX book XVII of St. Augustine's On the City of God. And some adduce that Philo wrote this book for the consolation of the Jews, whom the emperor Caius afflicted; whence he proposes to them the example of the liberation of the Hebrews from the tyranny of Pharaoh, whom God wore down with so many plagues; and he describes the rule of a just king, but the fault of an unjust one and a tyrant, and threatens him with God's vengeance.
But this opinion is altogether improbable, first, because this Philo remained after Christ a Jew, that is an infidel, and obstinate in Judaism, and therefore alienated from Christ, and an adversary of the Christian faith. Who believes that an infidel wrote a book so faithful, in which the principles of faith are handed down, and especially concerning Christ suffering and dead, as is evident cap. II, vers. 20. Secondly, because Wisdom is numbered by all the orthodox and by the whole Church among the books of the Old Testament, which were written before Christ; for it prophesies concerning Christ, cap. II; therefore it could not have been written by Philo, who lived after Christ. Add that the style of Philo differs far from the style of Wisdom. Thirdly, because Philo was here very much devoted to Plato; hence that saying: "Either Philo platonizes, or Plato philonizes." Hence from Plato he drew his errors, as when in the book On the Creation of the Six Days he thinks the stars are intelligent animals; and that heaven was made by God, so that it might be the dwelling place of gods both invisible (angels) and visible (stars): he often asserts planetary divinations from Talmudic and genethliacal ravings: he doubts whether the world was more made in the image of God than man, and whether the earthly paradise truly existed: in the book On the Congregation for the Sake of Seeking Erudition, he seems to insinuate that hell is nothing other than the conscience of a wicked man and his remorse: in the book On the Fugitives, he asserts that the rational soul was created by God only for Adam, but the sensitive soul together with the angels. Sixtus Senensis recounts more errors of Philo, lib. V Biblioth. cap. XVII and XCIII; but the author of the book of Wisdom refutes some of them. Fourthly,
Convinced by these reasons, some think this book was written by Philo, not that one who lived after Christ under Caius, but an elder one, who lived 160 years before Christ under Onias the ancient high priest. Thus Alphonsus Curiel, controv. 2; Michael Medina, lib. VI De recta in Deum fide, cap. XII; Driedo, lib. I De Eccles. dogm. cap. IV, ad 5 diffic.; Canus, lib. II De Locis, cap. XI, ad 5; Pamelius in notis ad St. Cyprian, book On Mortality num. 43. Genebrardus in Chronologico, anno mundi 3860. But there is no mention of this elder Philo among Josephus, Eusebius, and other ancient writers: for they remembered only the Hebrew Philo, who lived under Caius, and Philo of Byblos, that is sprung from Byblos the city of Phoenicia, who was not Hebrew, but a gentile, and therefore unfit for writing canonical books. Eusebius teaches this expressly, lib. I Praepar. Evang. cap. VI: "Philo," he says, "not Hebrew, but Byblian, translated the history of the Phoenicians written in their language into the Greek language." The same one, not another, is cited by Josephus, lib. I Contra Apionem, whose words Eusebius transcribed, lib. IX Praepar. at the end, where he says that Demetrius of Phaleron, Philo the elder (Byblian) and Eupolemos, gentiles, wrote histories of the Chaldaeans, Syrians and Phoenicians, and incidentally sometimes touched upon Jewish matters, but in these, as being foreign to them, sometimes erred: "To whom," he says, "pardon should be given, because they did not have great knowledge of our literature," which cannot be said of the Hebrew Philo. Add: The authors cited think this Philo was one of the 72 interpreters; but this cannot be said, for Aristeas in the History of the 72 interpreters, assigning the names of each, names no Philo among them. The cause of the error, why namely some attribute Wisdom to Philo, is that Solomon was called by God, II Reg. XII, 25, in Hebrew ידידיה Iedidia, that is beloved of the Lord, which in Greek is called φίλων: for φιλέω means I love, φιλία love, φίλος friend; hence also Philo the Jew is called by the Rabbis (and namely by R. Azariah) in Hebrew Iedidia: for the ancient Hebrews made Solomon the author of Wisdom, as is evident from R. Moses Bar-Nachman, who is called in short Ramban, and flourished 300 years ago. For he in the Proem of the Pentateuch, from the great wisdom of Solomon as if from Holy Scripture, cites that passage from Wisdom VII, 7: "I wished, and understanding was given me," and recites the rest that follows accurately and at length. But he recites it in the Jerusalem language,
ARGUMENT ON WISDOM 3 paragraphs
namely Syriac, which the Jews used after their return from Babylon; whence you may gather that the author of this book is Solomon in such a way that nevertheless it was written by someone later, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans, in his own and native style, and therefore not purely in Hebrew, as Solomon wrote his own works, but corruptly or in the Jerusalem language, that is in Syriac. Or rather this book was first written in Greek by the author, then translated by some Hebrew into the Jerusalem language, just as the third book of Maccabees; for thus both Josephus and Philo wrote their works in Greek, because they were skilled in Greek and wrote for Greeks and Latins. For the style of Wisdom plainly smells of Greek phrasing, not Hebrew. Therefore some recent Latin writers attributed this book to Philo the Jew, because the Hebrews attributed it to Philo, not knowing that by Philo they understood Solomon, for the reason already stated, not Philo the Jew.
I say therefore: It is certain by faith that the primary author of the Book of Wisdom is the Holy Spirit; but it is uncertain who was the secondary author, namely the Hebrew scribe and rabbi who wrote it at the dictation of the Holy Spirit. This is sufficiently intimated by St. Dionysius the Areopagite, cap. IV of the Divine Names, where, citing a passage from cap. VIII of Wisdom: "In the first place," he says, "in the holy institutions of Scripture you will find someone saying this about divine wisdom: I became a lover of her beauty," where τὸ quemdam signifies an uncertain author. In the same manner Anastasius of Nicaea cites the author of Wisdom, Quaest. XXXV in the Holy Scripture: "A certain wise man," he says; and St. Gregory, lib. XXVII of the Morals cap. XVIII: "Well," he says, "it is said through a certain wise man," Wisdom XVII, 10: "When wickedness is fearful," and lib. XXIII of the Morals cap. XVI: "Well a certain wise man, Wisdom VII, 15: But God gave me to speak according to understanding." In a similar manner St. Chrysostom cites him, hom. 4 and 47 in Genesis, and hom. 40 and 42 in Matthew, and St. Cyril of Alexandria, dial. On the Trinity, and St. Jerome in the Prologue to the Books of Solomon: "Among the Hebrews," he says, "it is nowhere found, and indeed the very style itself smells of Greek eloquence." And Eusebius, lib. XI of the Preparation cap. V: "Moved by this reasoning," he says, "he who inscribed the book of his Wisdom to his person," namely unknown. Genebrardus also says the author of Wisdom is anonymous and uncertain. Thus also the others, whom Pineda cites and follows, Praef. in Ecclesiastes cap. II.
Moreover, because this book appears to have been written in Greek style by some Hebrew, as testified by St. Jerome, it is permissible to conjecture that it was written shortly after the reign of Alexander the Great, who was more than six hundred years after Solomon: for Alexander, with his empire, brought the Greek language into Judaea, so that the more noble Jews then began to learn Greek. Hence shortly after Alexander, Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second king of Egypt, summoned from Judaea 72 interpreters, who translated the Hebrew Bibles into Greek
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.