What is the Wisdom of Solomon?

And how marvellously the Lord answered the King's petition! The greatness of Solomon's wisdom, the many-sidedness of its character as well as the world-wide impression this wisdom made is recorded in verses 29-34. "Happy is the man who findeth wisdom, and the man who causeth understanding to go forth; for merchandise with it is better than merchandise of silver, and the gain from it than the most fine gold" (Prov. 3:13-14). The King expressed in these words his own experience. His wisdom was greater than the wisdom of the wise men of the East and greater than Egypt. (Compare 1 Chron. 2:6. Ethan, 1 Chron. 6:44; 15:17, 19. Ps. 89 [Inscription]; Heman see 1 Chron. 6:33; 25:5. Psalm 88 [Inscription].) He spake 3000 proverbs and made 1005 songs. The book of Proverbs contains hundreds of his sayings. But not all these proverbs were preserved and only a few of his songs (Song of Solomon and a few Psalms). Creation itself was known by the great King. (See verse 33.) According to an apocryphal book (Wisdom of Solomon) he had knowledge of cosmogony, astronomy, the alteration of solstices, the cycles of years, the natures of wild beasts, the forces of spirits, the thoughts of men, the qualities of plants and roots. Jewish tradition even declares that he could converse with the wild beasts. This knowledge of creation was not a perfect knowledge. However, it also reminds us of the glorious time when the secrets of nature, lost through the fall of man, will be restored through Him, who will deliver groaning creation (Rom. 8:21).

The Roman Catholic Church receives as canonical, certain books which are rejected by the Reformers, and called by them The Apocrypha. This word signifies what is concealed, and seems originally to have been applied to those books which were not published and universally known as canonical Scriptures; but were confined to some few heretical congregations, known only to them, and concealed except from the initiated. And then it came to mean, as with us, specially those books sometimes classed as belonging to the Old Testament, but never received by the Jews as such. These books were appended to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, and thence transferred to the Vulgate or Latin translation made from the Septuagint. Some of these books, as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are in every way to be recommended, as containing wise and pious precepts, though not directly sanctioned by Divine authority. The books of Maccabees are good and reliable history. While others are mere extravagant romances, of no value whatever.

Let it be observed that the Roman Church does not deny the fact upon which the Reformers proceeded — viz., that these Apocryphal books were never received as canonical by the Jews. It will be seen, on reference to the preface of the Douay Bible — i.e., the English version of the Bible sanctioned by the Roman Church — that the canonicity of the Apocrypha is made to rest, solely on the dogmatic authority of the Church.

It is interesting to observe that this glimpse, this adumbration of a great truth, which was only to become fully clear in Christ Jesus our Lord, was advanced a tittle in clearness and completeness by a book which is not considered to be inspired, the so-called Book of Wisdom, in a passage which must be quoted: "For she (i.e., Wisdom) is a breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty; therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God and the image of His goodness. And being but one, she can do all things; and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new; and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God and prophets. For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with Wisdom. For she is more beautiful than the sun, and above all the order of stars; being compared with the light, she is found before it."

The Alexandrian collection took in more Books than the Hebrew: this may be seen from the Septuagint in its complete form. The accretions called 'external,' 'extraneous' in the Talmud, are to us known by the name of Apocrypha, meaning either, books with a hidden, mystical meaning, or, books that are kept back, though not lightly esteemed.* In modern Greek, the meanings of apokruphos seem to be secret, hidden, occult. We might perhaps compare the relation between these writings and those of our Old Testament to that between the Patristic and the New Testament writings.

Some books of the Apocrypha were translated into Greek or Latin from Hebrew or Aramaic; others were written originally in Greek. They were never accepted by the Palestinian Jews, though some were of Palestinian origin. Josephus is a primary witness for the Hebrew (or Palestinian) Canon: we have seen the form it takes in his hands. (Cf. chap. 3 § 1.) It is not that the books of the Apocrypha contain nothing worth reading. Wisdom 2:23 would set right the materialism of our own day; 11:5 of the same book in the Greek ought to put to shame the opponents of the doctrine of endless torment, who boast of their much learning. But the leaders of the nation at the centre of its life had divine instincts to which under God we owe the purity of the Hebrew Canon.

You quote Tobias also: that is, the Apocrypha. This is one of the terrible sins of Rome. She has pretended to authenticate as scripture what was never owned as such till the middle of the sixteenth century, and what the very person who made the translation which she declares to be authentic states not to be scripture at all. Over and over again he (Jerome) declares there are twenty-two books, excluding thus the Apocrypha from the canon; and in particular, in his preface to Tobias, says it was not in the Hebrew scriptures. In his preface to the Books of Solomon he says, "As, therefore, the church reads, indeed, Judith and Tobias, and the books of the Maccabees, but does not receive them among canonical scriptures, so also let her read these two volumes, for the edification of the people, not to establish the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas." He refers to Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom. Athanasius reckons them up also, twenty-two, both in the Synopsis (if it be his, for some have doubted it), and in the fragment of the Festal epistle, giving them, he says, because some would dare to mix apocryphal books with divine scriptures, and speaking of Tobias and others as read, but not canonical.

The Apocrypha.

The Hebrew Bible or Old Testament was completed with Malachi. Then about 284 B.C. the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Sacred Hebrew Books was begun, and finished about 130 years before Christ. But long after the Old Testament was complete in Hebrew, certain books were written by Jews in Alexandria and elsewhere — dates and names of authors being uncertain — which were bound up with the Septuagint. These books are termed The Apocrypha. They are useful as connecting links of history between the Testaments, but are utterly destitute of Divine authority, nor do the books themselves claim to be inspired. The difference between the Apocrypha and the Hebrew Bible as to character, style, and subjects are patent even to a child.

Davidson seeks to exalt books of the Apocrypha by lowering those of the Canon, which will not surprise. The fact that Paul quotes heathen poets, but leaves these other books to their obscurity, is lost upon Davidson. He thinks to find omissions in Canonical Books which vitiate their supremacy. He says, 'The doctrine of immortality clearly expressed in the Book of Wisdom is not in Ecclesiastes, neither is God once named in the Book of Esther.' ('Canon of the Bible,' p.263.) Has this writer never learned the drift of these Books of Scripture which he thus impeaches? How would immortality fit a discourse from beginning to end upon what takes place 'under the sun'? What need can there be in the history of the Jewish princess of any mention of Elohim, Jehovah, or other Divine name? The present mysterious providence of God — without any name in the Hebrew — for the people of His inheritance, a people destined after judgment and suffering to be the executors of His government yet on earth, is the one theme. To this immortality, as such, bears no special relation. Warburton could not find the doctrine of immortality in the Pentateuch: why does not Davidson in this connection assail the Mosaic Books? People even who are rationalistic weary of the senseless attacks upon, for instance, the Fifth Book of the Law, just as they feel how equally groundless are the onslaughts upon the Fourth of the Gospel.

In the Alexandrian system, as we have it in Philo, and perhaps the Book of Wisdom, much had been borrowed from scripture, much from Plato, who, I cannot doubt, had got his notions from the Feroohers of Zoroaster, and which, except the Feroohers, is reproduced in Hegel and Schelling. Gentiles had traditions; Alexandrian philosophy had shreds of Judaism; but God was lost. Now God, who had compassion on man, took up every link where He could connect Himself in grace with man, while positively confirming His own revelation given in the Old Testament. He could take up the unknown God in Athens, the λόγος in Alexandria, the Paraclete itself as a term. But what does He do? The unknown God is fully revealed with positive facts and divine truth. The λόγος was introduced by Platonic Jews in Alexandria, because God could have nothing to say to the mere creature; and the λόγος might form others, but remained alone in His own nature. For John the λόγος is God, who Himself becomes flesh. The cravings which philosophy had made a false system out of, not knowing God, are met (not a system made out of them) by the revelation of God Himself, the truth of all they sought, and the perfect grace they needed. It put down the philosophy, while it met all the seekings of man in it. It took up the old thoughts thus far; but to say it did not so much bring in what was new is utterly false. All it brought in was new (save as the Old Testament revelation had spoken of it). But it did meet the hungerings of the human soul, which philosophy was wasting by ideas, and told the truth about the traditions which had been perverted into monstrous, idolatrous, and absurd legends.

The third chapter of the 'Schema,' or draft decree, discussed in the second sitting, and bearing the title 'De divinae revelationis fontibus in S. Scriptura et Traditione,' was adopted on the 7th April, and being finally put to the vote on the 12th of the same month was, according to Dr. Manning ('True Story of the Vatican Council,' p.95), carried by a large majority. The following are the material words of the decree in its definition of the Canon, as given by Friedrich: 'Iterum declaramus et definimus eosdem libros omnes cum omnibus suis partibus quemadmodum in decreto oecumenici concilii Tridentini continetur pro sacris et canonicis suscipiendos esse.' Then follow these words: 'Sacri autem et canonici credendi sunt non quod humana tantum ope scripti auctoritate tamen Ecclesiae in canonem s. s. Scripturarum relati sint … sed eo quod Spiritu sancto inspirante conscripti fuerunt, ideoque sunt Scripturae divinitus inspiratae quae habent Auctorem Deum,' the sense of which has been aptly given by Dr. Littledale as follows: 'The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament' — to speak alone of them — 'are held as sacred and canonical, not because they have been approved by the Church's authority, but because having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church itself!' This Council seeks almost to excel that of Trent in its desire to break from the past for in chapter 2, Wisdom (13:1-9) is appealed to in condemnation of Rationalism before the writings of any Prophet or Apostle. We may sorrow for Dr. Manning's congratulation of his Church. If the Vatican Council had met and parted without any act beyond this one decree, it would have applied a direct and searching remedy to the intellectual aberrations of the nineteenth century.'

We have now to watch the Jewish writings as they circulated amongst early Christians, in particular the so-called Fathers. Of the first Christians the Old Testament was of course the one written guide, until the New Testament Scriptures were disseminated and gained acceptance. As most could use the Old Testament only in Greek, they were accustomed to the books comprised in the Septuagint. Hence some of the 'Fathers' often cite the Apocrypha as though canonical. De Wette gives references to Irenaeus, second century; Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, both of whom lived into the third century; Cyprian, third century.

Origen, also of the third century, though acquainted with the Hebrew Canon, did not depart from the Alexandrian Bible. He refers to the books of the Maccabees as possessed of 'scriptural authority,' quotes Wisdom and Tobit, calls Ecclesiasticus 'the Divine Word,' and so on.