CHAPTER XI

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