The Wisdom Literature; the Jewish Conception of Wisdom
[LITERATURE.—Cheyne, _Job and Solomon, or The Wisdom of the Old
Testament_ (1887); Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, ii.
pp. 292-309 (1888); Driver, _An Introduction to the Literature
of the Old Testament_, pp. 337-449 (1891); Toy, _Judaism and
Christianity_, pp. 52-76 (1891); Cornill, _Einleitung in das
Alte Testament_, pp. 216-279 (1896); Toy, _The Book of Proverbs_
(1899); Friedländer, _Griechische Philosophie in Alten Testament_
(1904); Briggs, _The Book of Psalms_ (1906); Barton, _The Book
of Ecclesiastes_ (1908); Meinhold, _Die Weisheit Israels in
Spruch, Sage und Dichtung_ (1908); Gregg, _The Wisdom of Solomon_
(1909); Oesterley, _The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach,
or Ecclesiasticus_ (1912); Oesterley and Box, _The Wisdom of
Ben-Sira_, and Holmes, _The Wisdom of Solomon_, in Charles’
“Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament” (1913);
Goodrick, _The Book of Wisdom_ (1913).]
I. THE WISDOM LITERATURE
The Wisdom Literature of the Jews which has come down to us comprises
both canonical and uncanonical books[300]; but the distinction may
be ignored, for all the books which belong to this Literature,
though each has its particular characteristics, are clearly members
of one family; they are all alike in possessing one outstanding and
typical mark of differentiation from the rest of the Old Testament
books, viz., in them religion has become philosophy. It was not,
of course, philosophy in the Greek, any more than in the modern,
sense of the word; “the wise men of Israel never approached their
inquiries without theological presuppositions; they had no desire to
investigate final causes; they started from a fundamental axiom, ‘In
the beginning was God ...’; this postulate indicates the character
of their studies, which were not so much speculative as practical:
their desire was not so much to understand the works of God, as to
acquaint themselves with their harmonies, beauties, and adaptations,
and all this with the final object of knowing and doing the will of
God.”[301] But while the fundamental Jewish monotheistic belief is
taken for granted throughout the Wisdom Literature, the latter has
other characteristics which are not wholly in accord with traditional
Judaism. That the various writers differ in their teaching from
each other, and that the same writer is not always consistent in
his teaching, is not a cause for surprise; these men had entered
upon new ways of thinking, and were grappling with new subjects of
thought; it was natural that their speculations should sometimes
be only tentative; they had, moreover, come into contact with new
influences which would have affected one more than another. It
must also be remembered that some of the books belonging to this
literature, notably Proverbs and Job, are of composite authorship,
and that possibly the component parts belong to different periods;
so that what may sometimes appear contradictory in one writing in
reality represents some development of thought belonging to a later
writer. But however this may be, we certainly find in the Wisdom
Literature positions taken up which show to some extent a departure
from traditional Judaism. The wise men present a very interesting
combination in that they are at once universalistic and conservative.
We find in the Wisdom Literature but little stress laid on national
institutions and laws, such, for example, as the sacrificial system;
it is recognized, it is true, but rather because it is thought right
to keep up the old customs than that there is any intrinsic value
or permanent necessity in the system. In like manner the Messianic
expectations receive very scanty recognition. The attitude of the
sages towards the Gentiles is generally friendly; they recognized
the higher culture, in many respects, of these nations, and were
therefore willing to learn from them; not infrequently we find, for
example, that the God of the Jews is declared to be the God of all
men. But the most striking characteristic, which is quite un-Jewish,
is the conception of the God-like _Sophia_, which is conceived of
as a creative divine power existing before the creation of the
world; “this hypostatization of Wisdom,” says Friedländer, “is here
a downright sacrilege; it betrays the violent entry of an alien
spirit into the domain of Judaism, and even the fine way in which
the essence of the divine Wisdom is described cannot for a moment
blind us to the act of violence perpetrated by the forcible intrusion
of Greek conceptions into the atmosphere of the old Hebrew idea of
Wisdom.”[302] But as we deal in section III of this chapter with the
conception of Wisdom as portrayed in all the books of the Wisdom
Literature, it will not be necessary to say anything on this subject
here.
II. THE ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW CONCEPTION OF WISDOM
There is a great difference between the conception of Wisdom which is
presented in the literature of Israel prior to the captivity and that
which meets us in the Wisdom Literature proper; yet there is no sort
of doubt that the latter represents the full growth of a plant whose
seed can be clearly seen in the early writings of the Old Testament.
This is, however, only part of the truth; for while it is true to
say that the religious-intellectual _spirit_ to which the Wisdom
Literature of the Jews owed its existence was of indigenous growth,
it is no less true to say that the elements which contributed to the
production of that Literature were not exclusively Jewish. We shall
try to show presently that Babylonian influence was, in part, at work
in helping the sages of Israel both before the captivity, as well as
in post-exilic times, to frame their ideas on Wisdom as these appear
in the Wisdom Literature, while still later the influence of the
Greek spirit is to be clearly discerned. But our first task must be
to seek the first beginnings of Wisdom in the earlier books of the
Old Testament.
When precisely ideas about Wisdom began to manifest themselves in
Israel it would be impossible to say, but the germs from which,
centuries after, the Wisdom Literature grew were already in existence
during the early days of the Monarchy, for the tradition of Solomon’s
wisdom is undoubtedly based upon fact. In 1 Kings iv. 30-34 (verses
10-14 in the Hebrew) it is said: “And Solomon’s wisdom excelled
the wisdom of all the children of the east, and all the wisdom
of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men.... And he spake three
thousand proverbs; and his songs were a thousand and five. And he
spake of trees.... And there came of all peoples to hear the wisdom
of Solomon, from all the kings of the earth, which had heard of
his wisdom.”[303] Even allowing for some exaggeration, which is so
natural to an oriental writer, there can be little doubt that this
passage is based upon actual fact, though what is meant by Wisdom
in this and similar passages was very different from what would now
be understood by that term, as we shall see. But Solomon was not
the first example of a “wise man” in Israel. The earliest form of
Wisdom is represented by what the Hebrews called a _māshāl_; this is
usually translated by “proverb,” but it has, in addition to this, a
much wider signification, for it is used of a prophetic figurative
discourse, such as those uttered by Balaam; in later times it was
also used to describe a parable and an allegory; in this sense it
occurs in Ezekiel. In its earlier simple sense a _māshāl_ meant a
“proverb,” not necessarily of a religious, or even ethical, content;
it expressed some general truth brought home to men by the observance
of the ordinary experiences of life. One of the very simplest of
these found in the Old Testament is: “Out of the wicked cometh forth
wickedness” (1 Sam. xxiv. 13); this is said to be “a proverb of the
ancients,” which shows that it must have long been in use among
the Israelites. In 2 Samuel xx. 18 another proverb, which seems
likewise to have been long current among the people, is preserved:
“They were wont to speak in old time, saying, ‘They shall surely
ask counsel at Abel’”; this was uttered by a “wise woman.” With
deeper observation and reflection more subtle thoughts came to be
expressed in this form. “The Israelites, like all other peoples, must
have reflected more or less, from the moment when they attained a
settled civilization, on general questions of life. The lowest form
of such reflection appears in popular proverbs and fables, which
express, usually in a one-sided and superficial way, the result of
the ordinary common-sense experience and observation.”[304] As a
general rule, however, the few examples of proverbs which we find in
the earlier books of the Old Testament reflect a relatively somewhat
advanced type, and what is especially interesting about them is that
they appear not infrequently to have been made on the spur of the
moment; this is the case with the proverb in 1 Samuel x. 12: “Is
Saul among the prophets?” which is said to have “become a proverb.”
Another saying the form and rhythm of which marks it out as a proverb
is: “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house” (2 Sam.
v. 8, R.V. marg.); the fact that this is prefaced by the words,
“Wherefore they say,” also points to its having been a popular
proverb. These, and similar proverbs, though originally composed
in reference to some particular occurrence, became applicable in
course of time in a more general way. The proverb, for example, “Is
Saul among the prophets?” might be described as the _converse_ of
the modern proverb: “Birds of a feather flock together”; or, again,
the proverb: “They shall surely ask counsel at Abel,” may well
have become a popular way of expressing the truth that if you want
guidance you must seek it at the right quarter. A later and more
advanced type of proverb is uttered by the prophet Hosea (viii. 7):
“They sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind”; another is
quoted in Jeremiah xxxi. 29 and Ezekiel xviii. 2 in the words: “The
fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on
edge.”
The simplest form of proverb was thus the earliest type of “Wisdom”
among the Israelites, as it was among other peoples. But the content
of a proverb easily lent itself, in the minds of the more reflective,
to expansion, and thus by degrees were formed fables and parables
whereby truths were illustrated and brought home to the minds of men.
One of the earliest fables—the exact application of which in its
present context is not quite easy to determine—is preserved in Judges
ix. 8-15:
Once upon a time the trees went forth to anoint over them a king;
And they said to the olive: “Rule thou over us.” And the olive
said to them:
“Should I give up my fatness wherewith they honour gods and men,
And go and wave over the trees!”
Then said the trees to the fig-tree: “Come thou, be king over us.”
And the fig-tree said to them:
“Should I give up my sweetness and my good fruit,
And go and wave over the trees!”
Then said the trees to the vine: “Come thou, be king over us.”
And the vine said unto them:
“Should I give up my wine that cheereth gods and men,
And go and wave over the trees!”
Then said all the trees to the thorn-bush: “Come thou, be king
over us.”
And the thorn-bush said to the trees:
“If truly ye anoint me as king over you,
Then come, trust to my shadow; but if not, then may fire come
forth from the thorn-bush,
And devour the cedars of Lebanon!”
We have attempted to translate this in the poetical form of the
original Hebrew; it will be seen that the thought-structure is very
simple, so that the ideas conveyed would be easily apprehended by
the common people to which the fable was addressed. Another fable,
the only other one preserved in the Old Testament, occurs in 2 Kings
xiv. 9: “The bramble that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that
was in Lebanon, saying, ‘Give thy daughter to my son to wife’; and
there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon and trod down the
bramble.” But it is in the early Old Testament _parables_ that the
highest form of “Wisdom” in pre-exilic Israel is reached. As in the
case of fables, only two parables are preserved; they differ from
fables in two important particulars: in that only men are represented
as taking part and speaking, and that the content of a parable,
so far as we are able to judge from the specimens preserved, is
_religious_; this is a large step forward in approximation to the
later Jewish conception of Wisdom. The earliest Old Testament parable
occurs in 2 Samuel xii. 1-4, Nathan’s parable of the ewe-lamb; it
is sufficiently well known, and need not be quoted. The other is
Isaiah’s parable of the vineyard in Isaiah v. 1-4, which is written
in poetry, while the former is in prose. We may add here one other
form of Wisdom, found mainly in Ezekiel, namely the _allegory_;
this is also called a _māshāl_, but this word is here used in an
extended sense, for the allegory, though a parable in form, presents
a symbolical picture the meaning of which is not, like the parable,
easily grasped, but demands some thought before it can be properly
understood; it is therefore sometimes called a “riddle.” It differs
in another respect from the parable, for symbols take the place of
persons; but, like the parable, the Old Testament allegory has a
religious signification. Among the most striking allegories are: the
allegory of the great eagles (Ezek. xvii. 3-8), the allegory of the
caldron (Ezek. xxiv. 3-5), and the allegory of the valley full of dry
bones (Ezek. xxxvii. 1-10); but there are a considerable number of
others.
The examples of “Wisdom” which have so far been given form an
important element in the antecedents of the Wisdom literature; but
that this element was not exclusively Israelite is implied in the Old
Testament itself, for in a passage already quoted (1 Kings iv. 30,
[verse 10 in Hebrew]) it is said: “And Solomon’s wisdom excelled the
wisdom of all the children of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt.”
As in so many other respects, so, too, in the domain of Wisdom,
Babylon and Egypt evidently exercised considerable influence over
the Israelites[305]; and if this was so in pre-exilic times, much
more will it have been the case—at any rate as far as Babylon was
concerned—when a large portion, especially of the cultured classes,
of the nation was brought into immediate contact with Babylonian
thought during the exile. The following may be given as an example
of the way in which the Babylonian conception of Wisdom influenced
the Jews. According to the Babylonian cosmology, Wisdom dwelt in the
depths of the sea with Ea, the creative deity. Apsu, “the deep,” is
called “the house of Wisdom” because out of it came forth the Wisdom
of Ea, and the word of Ea; one of the epithets applied to the god Ea
is “lord of Wisdom.”[306] This conception of the “deep” being the
home of Wisdom is reflected in the Wisdom Literature of the Jews; in
Psalms xxxvi. 6 it is said:
Thy judgements are a great deep,
the original is more forcible, for literally it runs:
Thy judgements are Tehom Rabbah,
which is the ancient proper name for the ocean. So, too, in
Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 5, Wisdom says:
Alone I compassed the circuit of heaven,
And in the depth of the abyss I walked.[307]
Moreover, the fundamental conception of Wisdom in the Wisdom
Literature (of which we shall speak presently) is its inseparable
connection with God; the deeper insight of the Jewish sages saw some
truth in the Babylonian conception of the origin of Wisdom, that it
dwelt in the depth of the sea with the “Lord of Wisdom,” i.e. was in
close touch with the creative deity, so they adopted the conception
and placed it in a truer perspective.[308] What Kohler[309] says
in a somewhat different connection is applicable here: “As soon as
monotheism was firmly established as a result of the labours of the
prophets, the wisdom of the east could be consulted by Israel’s
sages, and questions concerning the origin of all things could be
answered, in both poetry and prose, far more intelligently than had
been possible for the ancient Babylonians.”
The origin of Wisdom is thus to be sought partly in Israel itself,
and partly in certain ideas which were adopted from extraneous
sources. But the way in which the Jewish sages of post-exilic times
developed both the indigenous as well as the foreign elements is
extremely instructive; to this we must now devote some attention.
III. THE JEWISH CONCEPTION OF WISDOM
Our chief concern is the conception of Wisdom as portrayed in the
Wisdom Literature; but it will be well to say just a word as to
how Wisdom was conceived of in the earlier literature, if only to
show the immense development of thought on the subject which took
place after the Exile. Wisdom (in Hebrew, _Chokmah_), and wise men
(in Hebrew, _Chakāmîm_) are fairly frequently mentioned in the
Pentateuch, and in the prophetical as well as in the historical
books; the words connote in general skill in doing anything, whether
in reference to artisans, or goldsmiths, or sailors, or mourning
women, or of the shrewdness of the astrologer or the magician. In a
higher sense it is used of wisdom in the administration of affairs;
in a few instances, as in Hosea xiv. 10, a man is called wise who is
far-seeing in religious things (cp. also Deut. iv. 6, Isa. xi. 2).
That the prophets rarely refer to the subject of Wisdom is natural
enough; it was not their function; they were called forth to rebuke
and exhort in the words and after the manner of preachers; they
appealed rather to the heart, to the emotions, to the conscience,
than to the intellect. Sometimes, it is true, we find that “wise men”
are spoken of as a class; thus Jeremiah witnesses to the fact that
already in his day the _Chakam_ (“wise man”) occupied a recognized
position side by side with the priest and the prophet: “For the law
shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the
word from the prophet” (Jer. xviii. 18).
Turning now to consider the various conceptions of Wisdom as
portrayed in the Wisdom Literature, we may begin with the well-known
words: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.” This saying
was to the Jewish sages probably the most important of any that was
uttered on the subject; it occurs in Job xxviii. 28 in the form:
“Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom.” In its more familiar
form it appears in Psalms cxi. 6, Proverbs i. 7, ix. 10 (cp. xv.
33), Ecclesiasticus i. 14 (cp. i. 15, 20, 27), and the sense of the
words occurs very often besides. But it is worth pointing out that
the meaning of the phrase is not that the fear of the Lord is the
commencement of Wisdom, but rather the “end” of it; it is true that
the Hebrew word used, _rôsh_ (lit. “head”), has also the sense of
“beginning”; but here it is “zenith” that is meant; the highest and
most perfect form of Wisdom is the fear of the Lord; so that one
might quite correctly render: “The fear of the Lord is the end of
Wisdom.”
In the Wisdom Literature generally Wisdom is never used in the sense
of pure knowledge; in its earliest meaning it connoted the faculty of
distinguishing between what was useful or beneficent, and what was
harmful; later, more ethically, between what was good and what was
bad. In the Wisdom Literature there is always at bottom a _religious_
content in Wisdom; that is to say, it is a divinely bestowed gift the
possession of which makes man in some measure like God. To be able
to distinguish truly between good and evil is the means whereby man
is enabled to stand in close relationship with God. But since the
faculty to distinguish between good and evil is a divine endowment,
every form of Wisdom comes from God, so that although the knowledge
and fear of the Lord is the highest type of Wisdom, there are less
exalted forms of it which are also regarded as part of the one great
gift of God; that is to say, what is called worldly wisdom does not
differ in kind, but only in degree from the higher form. In Proverbs
and Ecclesiasticus, which belong closely together, and which are the
chief exponents of this worldly wisdom, moral precepts form the main
topics; and though widely different from divine Wisdom, both emanate
from the same source, and are ultimately to be traced back to the
Giver of all good things.
But the particular conception of Wisdom which is of far-reaching
importance is that of personification which is attributed to it
in the Wisdom Literature. As a general rule Wisdom is spoken of
as something abstract; but in some very striking passages it is
personified. Before proceeding to illustrate this it is necessary
to utter a note of warning against exaggeration in two opposite
directions; on the one hand, we are not justified in reading into
the words which speak of the personification of Wisdom a meaning
which they were not intended to bear; still less, on the other hand,
are we justified in explaining away altogether the meaning which
those words _were_ intended to bear. When, nowadays, we speak of
things, whether abstract or concrete, as personalities the words
are used metaphorically without the remotest intention of really
imputing personality to the things described; but we must guard
against the danger of assuming that our modern way of envisaging
things can be paralleled by that of two thousand years ago; the
_mode of expression_ may not have greatly changed, but the _way of
conceiving_ is totally different. When, among the Jewish sages of
old, Wisdom was personified, it was conceived of, according to a
modern writer on the subject, as a “projection out of the Divine
mind, as something more than an attribute, but as something less than
a hypostasis; ‘a little more than kin, and less than kind.’”[310]
This is true as far as it goes; but the words of the Jewish sages, as
we shall see, lead one to believe that in their conception of Wisdom
they went even further than this; one may go so far as to say that
Wisdom was thought of as an intermediate being between God and the
world, a personality existing alongside of God, but separate from
Him. This is more or less parallel to some other personifications,
or quasi-personifications, of certain attributes proper to God
which appear in early post-Christian Jewish writings; these occupy
an intermediate position between personalities and abstract beings.
While, on the one hand, they are represented as being so closely
connected with God as to appear as parts of Him, or attributes, they
are, on the other hand, so often spoken of as undertaking individual
action that they must be regarded in a real sense as separate from
Him.[311]
The special importance of this conception of the hypostasis of
Wisdom lies not only in the fact that it forms the link between the
Palestinian and Hellenistic development of Judaism, but also that
it represents the contribution made by the Wisdom Literature to
the Christology of the Old Testament, and has, moreover, greatly
influenced Christian theology.[312]
What has been said must now be illustrated from the books of the
Wisdom Literature.
In the earlier portions of Proverbs, Wisdom is always an abstract
thing; the only passage in which one might conceivably discern a
tendency to something different would be xxii. 24:
Wisdom is before the face of him that hath understanding;
but it is doubtful whether this means more than that when a man has
sought Wisdom and has found it, Wisdom may be said to be “before his
face,” i.e., it is the man who has understanding before whose face
(mental vision) Wisdom appears, because he has sought her. It is in
what is pretty generally regarded as the latest portion of the book
(viz. i.-ix., belonging to the third century B.C. _circa_) that a
real personification of Wisdom is found; the whole of chapter viii.
is a speech uttered by Wisdom; much of it is undoubtedly figurative,
but the section viii. 22-31 evidently represents something more than
figurative language; it is too long to give in full, but a few of
the verses must be given in order to illustrate what has been said:
The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way,
Before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning,
Or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth;
When there were no fountains abounding with water....
When he established the heavens I was there;
When he set a circle upon the face of the deep;
When he made firm the skies above;
When the fountains of the deep became strong;
When he gave to the sea its bound,
That the waters should not transgress his commandment;
When he marked out the foundations of the earth;
Then was I by him, as a master workman....
With the thought of Wisdom being utilized by God in creating the
world (“Then was I by him, as a master workman”), one must compare
the thought of God having created the world by means of His _Word_;
this thought is already adumbrated in such a passage as Psalms
xxxiii. 6: “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made”[313];
these words were, at any rate, interpreted in later times to mean
that the whole of the Creation, as described in Genesis i., was
accomplished by means of the Word of God, “Word,” or _Memra_,
having become, in the meantime, a quasi-personality like Wisdom.
This development may be seen at work in the Wisdom Literature; for
example, in Ecclesiasticus xlii. 15 it is said: “By the Word of God
(are) His works,” i.e. were His works created; the context shows that
it is the works of the Creation which are referred to. In Wisdom iv.
1 we have the same thought: “O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy,
Who hast made all things by Thy Word, and by Thy wisdom didst form
man ...”; and, much later, in 2 (4) Esdras vi. 38, it is said again:
“Thy Word was (i.e. made) a perfect work,” where the reference is
to the first day of Creation. We are here irresistibly led to think
of the opening words of the fourth Gospel: “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was
in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without
Him was not anything made that hath been made” (John i. 1-3). It is
very striking to notice here how Christian truth was adumbrated in
pre-Christian times.
In the Book of Job, as everywhere in the Wisdom Literature, Wisdom is
of divine origin, e.g. xi. 5, 6:
But oh that God would speak,
And open His lips against thee;
And that He would show thee the secrets of Wisdom,
For sound wisdom is manifold (cp. xv. 8).
As a general rule the wisdom spoken of in this book is that of
experience; but in one striking passage there is a definite
personification of Wisdom, viz. xxviii. 12-28; it begins with the
question: “Where shall Wisdom be found?” And after its priceless
value has been described, the writer continues (verses 23 ff.):
God understandeth the way thereof,
And He knoweth the place thereof ...
When He made a decree for the rain,
And a way for the lightning of the thunder:
Then did He see it, and declare it;
He established it, yea, and searched it out....
But in this book where problems of great perplexity are treated,
there is less scope than in the other Wisdom books for dealing
specifically with Wisdom.
In Ecclesiastes (B.C. 200) Wisdom, as one would naturally expect,
is always something abstract; but in this book, with its terribly
pessimistic tone, we come across a phenomenon which is found nowhere
else in the Wisdom literature; the Preacher’s pessimism is seen to
affect even his estimate of Wisdom; what, for example, could be more
dismal than this?
And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom
concerning all that is done under heaven; it is a sore travail
that God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised
therewith.... I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I
have gotten me great wisdom above all that were before me in
Jerusalem; yea, my heart hath had great experience of wisdom and
knowledge. And I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to know
madness and folly; I perceived that this also was a striving
after wind. For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that
increaseth knowledge increaseth grief (i. 13-18).
This forlorn writer, furthermore, seems sometimes to approach the
subject in an entirely perverse spirit; he says later:
I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth
darkness. The wise man’s eyes are in his head, and the fool
walketh in darkness; and yet I perceived that one event happeneth
to them all. Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the
fool, so will it happen even to me; and why was I then more
wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also was vanity. For of
the wise man, even as of the fool, there is no remembrance for
ever; seeing that in the days to come all will have been already
forgotten. And how doth the wise man die even as the fool (ii.
13-16).
This same spirit is manifested in the little parable in ix. 13-16:
... There was a little city, and few men within it; and there
came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great
bulwarks against it. Now there was found in it a poor wise man,
and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered
that same poor man. Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength;
nevertheless the poor man’s wisdom is despised, and his words are
not heard.
We can only say that such an attitude is deplorable; the writer seems
to think that unless Wisdom is recognized and the wise man rewarded,
it is vanity! That is quite different from the usual attitude of the
authors of the Wisdom Literature, who esteem and love Wisdom for its
own sake. There are, it is true, a few passages in this book which
witness to a better appreciation of Wisdom; for example, in vii. 11,
12 it is said:
Wisdom is as good as an inheritance; yea, more excellent is it
for them that see the sun. For Wisdom is a defence, even as money
is a defence; but the excellency of knowledge is that Wisdom
preserveth the life of him that hath it.
Or again in viii. 1:
A man’s wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the hardness of his
face is changed.
So that, in spite of what he says elsewhere, the Preacher has an
innate liking for Wisdom; as a recent commentator on the book says,
“he admires it, and at times follows it (i. 13, vii. 25, ix. 16);
but, on the other hand, he cannot rid himself of the feeling that
the wise man toils in vain (ix. 16), that his labour is a fruitless
endeavour, and that a child born dead is in reality happier than the
wise man (vi. 3-8). It is true that in another mood he declares that
it is better to know that one will die than to know nothing (ix. 5);
but, on the whole, his verdict is that Wisdom, like all other things
mundane, is vanity. The wise man has no real advantage, except that
he suffers with his eyes open; in the end he dies like a fool, and
goes to the same place (ix. 1 ff.).”[314]
In the Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus) all that is taught
concerning Wisdom in the earlier books (with the exception of what
is peculiar to Ecclesiastes) finds full expression, though Ben-Sira
is not a slavish imitator; he has his own ideas, and amplifies the
earlier teaching, always making it his own before giving expression
to it. The divine origin of Wisdom is shown by teaching that it is a
direct emanation from God:
All Wisdom cometh from the Lord
And is with Him for ever (i. 1).
I came forth from the mouth of the Most High,
And as a mist I covered the earth (xxiv. 3).
The existence of Wisdom before the creation of world is definitely
stated in the words:
Before them all (i.e. the heavens and the earth) was Wisdom
created (i. 4).
He created me from the beginning, before the world (xxiv. 9).
It is especially characteristic of Ben-Sira’s teaching that he
identifies the Law with Wisdom; this identification is often taken
for granted, while in several passages it is categorically set
forth. “Ben-Sira inculcates the truth that the way to lead a wise
life is to live according to the divine commandments, and acting
accordingly, man makes his human wisdom approximate to the divine,
and worldly, practical wisdom, in its many and various forms, is thus
of the same kind, only less in degree, as divine wisdom. It is thus
easy to see that the identification between the Law and Wisdom was
inevitable.”[315] This identification is to be seen in such passages
as the following:
For he that feareth the Lord doeth this (i.e. seeketh Wisdom),
And he that taketh hold of the Law findeth her (xv. 1).
He that keepeth the Law controlleth his natural tendency,
And the fear of the Lord is the consummation of Wisdom
(xxi. 11).
The most direct assertion, however, of this identity between the Law
and Wisdom is found in xxiv. 23, 25:
All these things (i.e. the things concerning Wisdom) are in
the book of the covenant of God Most High,
The Law which Moses commanded as an heritage for the assemblies
of Jacob,
Which filleth men with Wisdom, like Pison,
And like Tigris in the days of new fruits....
And again in xix. 20:
All Wisdom is the fear of the Lord,
And all Wisdom is the fulfilling of the Law.
Although Wisdom is the free gift of God,
Without measure doth He grant her to them that love Him (i. 26),
yet man is not able to utilize it without earnest effort; he has an
irksome discipline to go through which will test his sincerity:
But I will walk with him in disguise,
And at first I will try him with temptations.
Fear and dread will I bring upon him,
And I will torment him with chastisements (iv. 17);
but to the persevering the reward is great; this Ben-Sira expresses
in a passage full of poetical beauty:
For at length thou wilt find her rest,
And she shall be turned for thee into gladness.
And her fetters shall become a stay of strength for thee,
And her bands for robes of glory.
An ornament of gold is her yoke,
And her fetters a cord of blue.
Thou shalt array thee with her as with robes of glory,
And crown thee with her as with a crown of beauty (vi. 28-31).
It will have been noticed that in several of the passages just quoted
the personification of Wisdom is graphically expressed; there are
many others in this book in which this is taught[316]; an interesting
one is i. 15, where Wisdom is described in taking up her abode among
men:
With faithful men is she, and she hath been established from
eternity,
And with their seed shall she continue.
In another passage Wisdom invites men to come and abide with her:
Come unto me, ye that desire me,
And be ye filled with my produce;
For my memorial is sweeter than honey,
And the possession of me than the honey-comb (xxiv. 19, 20).
This thought of Wisdom abiding among men is illustrated in another
way; Ben-Sira, in desiring to show the superiority of the wisdom of
Israel over that of the Greeks, represents Wisdom as having sought
a resting-place among the nations of the world, but found that none
were worthy of her; thereupon God commanded her to abide in Israel
where she would find a permanent home:
With all these (i.e. every people and nation) I sought a
resting-place,
And said: “In whose inheritance shall I lodge?”
Then the Creator of all things gave me commandment,
And He that created me fixed my dwelling-place for me;
And He said: “Let thy dwelling-place be in Jacob,
And in Israel take up thine inheritance....”
And I took root among an honoured people,
In the portion of the Lord and of His inheritance
(xxiv. 7-12).
In his teaching concerning the personification of Wisdom Ben-Sira
offers something that is of a transitional character; in the main,
he bases his teaching on Proverbs, though he shows some advance upon
this; but he falls far behind what the Book of Wisdom has to say on
the subject. To this we must now devote some attention.
The writer of the Book of Wisdom, like the writers of all the books
belonging to this literature, teaches the divine origin of Wisdom;
but he has his own way of expressing this truth:
For she is a breath of the power of God,
And a clear effluence of the glory of the Almighty;
Therefore can nothing defiled find entrance into her.
For she is an effulgence from everlasting light,
And an unspotted mirror of the working of God,
And an image of His goodness (vii. 25, 26).
This divine Wisdom is so indispensable to man that he is of no
account without it:
For even if a man be perfect among the sons of men,
Yet if the Wisdom that cometh from Thee be not with him, he
shall be held in no account (ix. 6).
Another invariable doctrine in the Wisdom books, namely the
existence of Wisdom before the world was created, and her part in the
Creation, is taught thus:
And with Thee is Wisdom, which knoweth Thy works,
And was present when Thou wast making the world (ix. 9).
For she is initiated into the knowledge of God,
And she chooseth out for Him His works (viii. 4).
Ben-Sira, as we saw, identifies the Law with Wisdom; the
Jewish-Hellenistic writer of the Book of Wisdom does not do so, but
he teaches an identification between the Holy Spirit of the Lord and
Wisdom[317]; this is clear from the following passage:
Because Wisdom will not enter into a soul that deviseth evil,
Nor dwell in a body that is held in pledge by sin;
For a holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit ...
For Wisdom is a spirit that loveth man,
And she will not hold a blasphemer guiltless for his lips ...
Because the spirit of the Lord hath filled the world (i. 4-7).
Still more pointed are the words in ix. 17:
And who ever gained knowledge of Thy counsel, except Thou gavest
Wisdom,
And sentest Thy Holy Spirit from on high?
Further, Wisdom is identified with the Word of the Lord; the “Word”
is, however, used in the Old Testament sense, not in that of the
Philonian Logos. The Word, like Wisdom, takes part in the Creation:
O God of the fathers, and Lord Who keepest Thy mercy,
Who madest all things by Thy Word;
And by Thy Wisdom Thou formedst man.... (ix. 1, 2).
Just as Wisdom sits upon the throne of God:
Give me Wisdom, her that sitteth by Thee on Thy throne (ix. 4),
so, too, the same is said of the Word:
Thine all-powerful Word leaped from heaven out of the royal
throne (xviii. 15).
The nature of Wisdom, as portrayed in this book, has been well summed
up in the following words: “Wisdom is not an attribute, nor the sum
of the attributes, of God: such an explanation would not take account
of all the properties postulated of Wisdom, nor would it allow for
the completeness of the Divine transcendence. Wisdom, again, is not
God in manifestation; she is too distinct from Him to be merely a
theoretical aspect of Himself. Lastly, she is not a Being, personal
and distinct from God: she emanates from Him, but the emanation
has not terminated. No birth-severance has taken place, giving her
independent life.”[318]
Finally, it will not be amiss to take a glance, though it be but a
very slight one, at the teaching concerning Wisdom which is given
in some of the Apocalyptic books of which mention has been made in
the preceding chapter. It is true, these books do not belong to the
Wisdom Literature, nevertheless some of them contain teaching on the
subject of Wisdom which may appropriately find a brief consideration
here. We have already seen that in some of the earlier books of the
Old Testament materials are to be discerned out of which the Wisdom
Literature developed; as there were, therefore, these early seeds out
of which the Wisdom Literature grew, so in some of the Apocalyptic
books an after-growth may also be discerned. While the full fruit is
to be seen in the books with which we have just been concerned, it
is well to realize that some fruit is also to be gathered outside of
these. It will be sufficient for our purpose if we illustrate what
has to be said from three Apocalyptic books, viz. the Book of Enoch,
the Similitudes of Enoch and the Secrets of Enoch.
In the oldest portions of the Book of Enoch there is no mention
of Wisdom,[319] unless xci. 10 be included among these.[320] This
passage runs:
And the righteous shall arise from their sleep,
And Wisdom shall arise and be given unto them.
In the next oldest part, the “Dream Visions,” the thought which has
already come before us of Wisdom sitting on the throne of God, finds
expression:
Wisdom departs not from the place of Thy throne,
Nor turns away from Thy presence (lxxxiv. 3).
But it is in the “Similitudes” that we find a number of passages
dealing with the subject; in fact, all these “Similitudes,” or
“Parables,” are declared to be the outcome of the Wisdom which the
Lord of Spirits granted to Enoch (see xxxvii. 1-4, and cp. lxxxii.
2, 3). Differing from the teaching of earlier Wisdom books[321] it
is here stated that Wisdom could nowhere find a dwelling-place among
men, and had therefore to return to heaven (cp. the passage just
quoted):
Wisdom found no place where she might dwell;
Then a dwelling-place was assigned her in the heavens.
Wisdom went forth to make her dwelling among the children of men,
But found no dwelling-place;
Wisdom returned to her place,
And took her seat among the angels (xlii. 1, 2; cp. xciv. 5).
It is the Elect One, sitting on the throne of God, Who possesses all
the secrets of Wisdom:
And the Elect One shall in those days sit on my Throne,
And his mouth shall pour forth all the secrets of wisdom and
counsel:
For the Lord of Spirits hath given them to him, and hath
glorified him (li. 3; cp. xlix. 3).
The blessedness of those who accept Wisdom is described in xcix. 10.
In the Book of the Secrets of Enoch there is at least one passage in
which Wisdom is personified; it is a very curious one repeating with
strange details the thought that Wisdom, as taught in earlier books,
took her part in the Creation; the words are put into the mouth of
the Creator:
On the sixth day I ordered my Wisdom to make man of seven
substances: his flesh from the earth; his blood from the dew;
his eyes from the sun; his bones from the stones; his thoughts
from the swiftness of the angels, and the clouds; his veins [or
“nails”] and hair from the grass of the earth; his spirit from my
spirit, and from the wind (xxx. 8).
But in other passages, e.g. xxxiii. 3, xliii. 2, Wisdom is conceived
of as purely abstract.
SUMMARY
The Wisdom Literature is preserved in both canonical and uncanonical
books; but the distinction is here unimportant, for those belonging
to either category are clearly members of the same family; they
all possess one characteristic distinguishing them from the rest
of the Old Testament, viz. in them religion has become philosophy.
Not philosophy in the Greek sense, nor yet in that of the moderns,
but still religious philosophy of a distinct type. The fundamental
Jewish monotheistic belief is taken for granted throughout. There
are, however, other characteristics not altogether in accord with
traditional Judaism. The writers of the Wisdom Literature are not
always consistent with one another, or even with themselves, and
their speculations are often only tentative. This is not surprising,
for they were struggling with new ways of thinking and with new
subjects of thought; and they were, moreover, coming into contact
with new influences.
In the Wisdom Literature certain positions taken up show some
variance with tradition; thus, the wise men present a very
interesting combination of universalism and conservatism; little
stress is laid on national institutions and laws such as the
sacrificial system; in like manner the Messianic expectation
receives very scant recognition. The attitude towards the Gentiles
is generally friendly; their higher culture is recognized, and
there is willingness to learn from them. Not infrequently the God of
the Jews is declared to be the God of all men. Most striking is the
conception, which is quite un-Jewish, of the divine _Sophia_ which is
conceived of as a creative power existing before the Creation.
There is a great difference between the conceptions of Wisdom in
pre-exilic writings, and those of the Wisdom Literature proper; but
without doubt the former contain the seeds whose growth is seen in
the latter. Yet while it is true that the religious-intellectual
spirit to which the Wisdom Literature owed its existence was
an indigenous plant, yet the elements which contributed to its
development were not exclusively Jewish. Babylonian influence was at
work before, as well as during, the Captivity, and Greek influence is
to be discerned later.
It is not possible to say when ideas about Wisdom began to manifest
themselves in Israel. The earliest form of Wisdom is presented by
what the Hebrews called a _māshāl_, usually translated “proverb,” but
having a wider signification, being used of a prophetic figurative
discourse such as was uttered by Balaam, or a parable or allegory of
the kind found in the Book of Ezekiel. In its earlier use, however,
_māshāl_ did mean a “proverb,” i.e. a sentence expressing some truth,
not necessarily religious or ethical, which had been reached by
experience or observation.
The Hebrew words for “Wisdom” (_Chokmah_) and for “wise men”
(_Chakāmîm_) are found fairly frequently in the Pentateuch as well as
in the prophetic and historical books; but the usual meaning in these
differs from that found in the Wisdom Literature.
Of the several conceptions of Wisdom in the Wisdom Literature the
most important is that expressed in the well-known words: “The fear
of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom”; this occurs again and again
in varying form, its real meaning being that the fear of the Lord
is the _end_ of Wisdom, its highest and most perfect form. In this
Literature there is always a religious content in Wisdom; it is never
used of pure knowledge. In Proverbs and Ecclesiastes there is much
about worldly wisdom, but the faculty of distinguishing between good
and evil always comes from God.
The personification of Wisdom found in this Literature is of
far-reaching importance. We must neither read into the passages
which treat of this a meaning they were not intended to bear, nor
must we explain away the meaning that was really intended. When
among the Jewish sages of old Wisdom was personified, they thought
of a personality existing alongside of God, an intermediate being
between God and the world. This is more or less parallel to the
personification or quasi-personification of attributes proper to
God which is found in early post-Christian Jewish writings. The
special importance of this conception of Wisdom lies not only in the
fact that it forms the link between the Palestinian and Hellenic
development of Judaism, but also that it represents the contribution
made by the Wisdom Literature to the Christology of the New
Testament, and has, moreover, greatly influenced Christian theology.
In the earlier portions of Proverbs, Wisdom is always presented
as something abstract, except perhaps in xvii. 24. A real
personification is found in the later parts. In Job it is the wisdom
of experience that normally finds expression; but there is a definite
personification in xxxviii. 12-28. In Ecclesiastes Wisdom is always
something abstract, and, a unique element, the estimate of Wisdom is
affected by the Preacher’s pessimism. In Ecclesiasticus all that is
taught in the other books about Wisdom finds expression, with the
exception of the pessimism of Ecclesiastes; the identification of the
Law with Wisdom is a striking characteristic. The Jewish-Hellenistic
writer of the Book of Wisdom identifies Wisdom with the holy spirit
of the Lord, as well as with the Word (in the Jewish sense), and
teaches its divine origin and its existence before the creation of
the world (this is common to the Wisdom Literature generally).
A brief glance at the teaching concerning Wisdom in the Apocalyptic
Literature shows that there is very little in the earliest parts of
the Book of Enoch, but there are a number of passages which touch the
subject in the “Similitudes,” some of which have peculiar features.
In the Secrets of Enoch Wisdom is represented as taking part in the
Creation.