By Professor Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky
Assumptions regarding the philosophical origin and nature of this pseudo-Solomonic doctrine – The instability of these hypotheses on their most important points – On the identity of spirit and wisdom and the divine personality of the understood subject – This eliminates the philosophical significance of the doctrine, as purely biblical in its content. Therefore, on this issue, the Wisdom of Solomon could neither reward Hellenistic concepts nor incline the Apostle to them.
The non-canonical Wisdom of Solomon is included in the examination of the apostolic gospel because through it, St. Paul is allegedly introduced to Hellenistic religious elements and, having assimilated them, later converted to Hellenism proper. But consideration of questions concerning cosmology, anthropology, and eschatology has not yet confirmed this idea. 1 We now need to examine the similarities regarding the doctrine of the “spirit” and life “according to the spirit,” predestination, and paganism, so that—after a general conclusion—we can move on to hypotheses about Hellenic influences on the Apostle, when his “Gospel” is finally revealed in its origin and essence.
Analyzing St. Paul’s gospel in comparison with that of pseudo-Solomon, we found that the Apostle remains solely a servant of the Lord, proclaiming the truth of a great redemptive endeavor. But this deliverance was necessary because man is powerless to create his own salvation. This point again reveals a close resemblance to the Jewish author, who is commonly believed to have professed a “philosophical” impotence in overcoming dualistic contradictions, irreconcilable and ineradicable through natural human means. Was the great enlightener of paganism imbued with the same tendencies here? “Genetic” hypotheses regarding the doctrine of the divine spirit provide an answer to this question.
The position and significance of this point in pseudo-Solomon are perfectly clear to critical interpretations of the book under consideration. It supposedly preaches the complete impotence of the individual in the knowledge of God and, consequently, in action, due to the predominance of materiality, which ultimately suppresses the spirit, being inherently incompatible with it by nature. But – on the other hand – the Jewish writer fully embraced divine revelation and saw in it a precise revelation of the will of the Almighty, sufficient for knowledge, along with the obligation and accessibility of fulfillment. A grave conflict arose between philosophical premises and theological data. To resolve it, it was necessary to admit the presence of a supernatural energy that more or less inseparably dwells in the chosen “sons of God” (among the people of Israel) and “saves” them from naturalistic wretchedness. Thus, the concept of “wisdom,” the artist of the cosmos and enlightener of people, naturally appeared in the non-canonical document. This idea was not new to biblical doctrine, but it was advanced in response to specific doctrinal and theoretical demands, and if these were satisfied, it necessarily had to acquire a similar coloring. Therefore, when outlined in detail, the entire concept loses its traditional theological identity and dissolves into philosophical elements. It has been noted that in the characterization of “sophia,” Platonic and Stoic features merge, while others also add the influence of Heraclitus. According to the meaning of the dependence of St. Paul’s transition from pseudo-Solomon is transferred to the evangelist and, at least indirectly, is reflected in his Christology. 4 This significantly distances the latter from its usual ground in the preaching of the Lord the Redeemer and the confession of the early Church. However, continuity is preserved in the Apostle’s dogmatic development, which, without severing ties with the Jewish elements, finds in them support and materials for further constructions. 5 Hellenistic elements once again penetrate the non-canonical book, causing a fundamental transformation in Christological views when combined with judgments on the Spirit. It is clear that these original additions facilitated the forward movement and, serving the future, were bound to triumph over the old reserves, suppressing and displacing them irrevocably. This process was fundamentally inevitable and was accompanied by the falling away of the Jewish-Jewish and biblical resources of the apostolic “Gospel.” Therefore, “the faith of the pagan church created by Paul was initially nothing other than Christianized Hellenism, and this is a direct development of pre-Christian Hellenism, which through Paul’s proclamation of Christ received the historical foundations for the formation of (church) society and its liberation from the shackles of national-Jewish positivism”6.
This conclusion, of course, will be logically flawless if 1) the non-canonical text contains such doctrines, and 2) the Apostle borrows them and applies them critically. It is to these conditions that we will focus our attention.
By the very intentions of the pseudo-Solomon, wisdom occupies a central position in his work. However, the Jewish anonymous writer appeals to revealed truths and must therefore have drawn all his wealth from them. This is universally acknowledged, so it is not surprising that scholars of various persuasions see the source of explanations regarding sophia in the Old Testament7 and, more particularly, in the Book of Proverbs8. This is not the case in commentary, where opposing tendencies are observed. While some consider the concept itself to be originally Jewish9 and, in its development, discern elements for the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity10, others categorically state that the mysterious sage created an artificial philosophical theory from an Old Testament poetic personification11. Naturally, several currents are concentrated here. Combining them, the writer gives (VII, 22 ff.) a multifaceted characterization of wisdom, but even in this one can see the influence of Stoicism, which taught about the multitude of attributes in the world soul12. Therefore, the very qualifications are purely Stoic13 with the assimilation of qualities common to πνεῦμα νοερόν and λόγος σπερματικός 14. On this path, the author came close to Stoic pneumatism15 and made use of speculations regarding the world spirit and God, as an all-pervading and immanent mind16. Here, not only the terminology17 of the Stoics, but also the material definitions18 are similar to them. Differences are also pointed out, drawing on the concepts of Plato,19 Heraclitus,20 and Anaxagoras.21 However, the overall flavor is sharply Stoic,22 and this justifies the corresponding conclusions. Even in well-intentioned interpretations, wisdom is personal, since, while not a person,23 it is nevertheless not a simple property of God nor an independent substance,24 as it is sometimes imagined.25 As a result, it retains only the dignity of an inseparable emanation from the divine essence,26 as an extension or “outpouring” of the latter.27 In such judgments, sophia appears to be a deity diffused in the world through its divine energy, which is why in pseudo-Solomon we are obliged to admit a softened Stoic pantheism,28 which—according to its nature and origin—contains traces of Stoic materialism,29 expressed in certain predicates.30 Wisdom, by its very nature, exhausts all divine activity and, being hypostatically transformed by the power of God,31 is, as it were, a “second god.”32 With it, another equal value is unthinkable. And, in fact, the threefold mention of “logos” (IX, 1, 2, XVI, 12, XVIII, 15 ff.), rooted in the Old Testament, is alien to philosophical typicality33 and does not exceed the dimensions of a poetic personification34 of the omnipotent word of God35 or else reproduces Stoic logology.36 In the remarks on “spirit,” we simply have different names for a common object,37 and, by its identity with sophia, it is also outlined in the book of Wisdom.38 This objective unity39 is accompanied by a solidarity in essence. It is stipulated that – in Stoic concepts and terminology – there are no pantheistic overtones40, but at the same time it is confirmed that “spirit” is both distinct and inseparable from God, being His breath41.
This coincidence, by its most important feature, forces us to transfer here all other descriptions of wisdom, since it merges with πνεῦμα while being equal to πνεῦμα κυρίου and πνεῦμα ἅγιον 42. Here, even moderate exegetes discuss subtle touches of Stoicism in the discussion of spirit43, while others discover indelible Stoic characteristics44 with all their inevitable consequences. The very combination of both concepts is analogous to the Stoic conflation of wisdom with divinity as an all-pervading spirit45, and is equally linked to communicatio idiomatum. And since the former is revered as a “luminous emanation from God”46 and, by its sharply emanatic origin47, is imprinted with materiality48, the latter is no less affirmed for πνεῦμα49, emanatically separated from its origin, although not to the point of complete independence50. Again, a harmonious agreement is achieved, and this facilitates a correct understanding of the bearer of all the aforementioned objects. By the very nature of its relationship between the Creator and the cosmos, this subject is a necessary link for them, for it is recognized as a soul51 of the Platonic type52 and at the same time emanatically generalized with the Almighty. It follows from this that the two sides could not otherwise come into contact with each other, and in this there are already echoes of the metaphysical-ontological dualism 53 at the beginnings of the idea of the transcendentality of the deity 54. Therefore, cosmic existence is not directly obliged to God and arises only through wisdom, for which He is the cause 55, and the mission of the world-builder falls to the lot of Sophia 56, which comes forward in an active mediating role 57.
In this form, it fulfills all the functions of the Logos of ancient Greek philosophy and later Alexandrianism,58 and therefore serves as a historical prelude and natural preparation for the latter. Thus, through various impulses and influences, wisdom is rewarded with a measure of originality, necessary for successful mediation. On this subject, we hear only a few voices that it is a simple figure of living poetic imagery.59 Most think quite the opposite. They believe that personification goes beyond bare substantiality,60 since independence is revealed—alongside God,61 and for the world.62 Sophia will be, as it were, a personal being,63 with all the properties of personality.64 True, this hypostasis does not reach completion and has not crystallized into a distinct idea of personality.66 Nevertheless, the particularity is accepted with determination67, and the result will be that pseudo-Solomon did not bring his development to the level of Philo’s δεύτερος θεός 68. Pneumatological contemplations also correspond exactly to this observation, for the spirit as a mediator is endowed with the features of personal69 hypostaticity70. As a result, we find for the entire set of data that in the philosophical processing of the basic biblical views71 the author, deviating from the latter, approaches the formal hypostasis, later proclaimed in Alexandrian logology72, with which he is extremely closely related73 in securing speculative-philosophical concepts for the Old Testament idea of wisdom74.
This point concentrates the full importance of the question at hand, both for understanding the subject of our discourse and for its genetic applications to the apostolic gospel. In the first case, the mediating personality supports convictions in the dualistic premises of the book, which reconciles primordial oppositions within it. Then the concept itself would be theoretically constrained by conventional philosophical needs. This is an artificial dogma, devoid of any real significance. But St. Paul himself embraces and adapts all these elements, so we must believe that for him, too, the second divinity of the pre-mundane Christ has the equal dignity of a doctrinal abstraction without any real justification, and all the predicates found necessarily apply to it. In the Jewish writer, the spirit is identified with wisdom75 and assumes a certain materiality76, and therefore it is no less true for the Apostle that for him the Holy Spirit is not a real personal principle77 and coincides with the exalted Christ78, whose pneumatic divinity would be a completely theoretical fiction, for it does not exceed the level of the philosophical doctrine of the “apocrypha” regarding σοφία–πνεῦμα.
If one considers all these diverse aspects, it will not be difficult to understand and agree that everything here is concentrated on the idea of the personal independence of the mediator, as invented for theoretical needs and – therefore – philosophically lifeless in its appearance. Without this—with realistic personifications of the divine attributes—there is no basis for a doctrine of the second divine hypostasis, and the Hellenic evangelist will appear independent in his Christology, which requires both new foundations and a different understanding of all details. Generally speaking, the object of borrowing must be present in advance, and for us, the entire task boils down to determining whether it is indisputable in the non-canonical text, with all its critical typicality.
“Genetic” interpreters answer affirmatively, and in this case, they have the support of Catholic orthodox-conservative and (some) Orthodox commentators. The latter note a doctrinal progress79 in that, undergoing Hellenization in verbal expression80, Jewish principles are personified with such boldness81 that wisdom almost ceases to be a divine attribute82 and appears “as if a special hypostasis of the Deity” as a “special power distinct from Him”83, although it is not completely rejected84. Others go further and directly find a supermundane wisdom85 which, equated with the deity86, is no longer a creature87 and not a simple personification88, but an absolute hypostasis89 – second next to God90. According to the subjective dignity of self-enclosure91, it is depicted as divinely personal in itself92 and in its revelation as “word”93, differing from its objective revelation in the finite world, where it approaches the Stoic Logos94 and is therefore characterized by Stoic predicates95. The originality of pseudo-Solomon does not lie in his failure to rise to the level of Philonic hypostasis, but in his denial and rejection of all created definitions.96
Thus, the mediator is revealed to possess the characteristics of divinity97 and will be the forerunner of the New Testament Son of God.98 From the point of view of Christian dogmatics, such an understanding is entirely possible and legitimate, since it is permissible for it to speak even of multiple personalities99 when faith in the Holy Trinity is professed. However, such a transfer of the later to the earlier is not entirely appropriate, since we are describing the latter in its true historical outlines and in all its gloom, not yet fully understood, before which much of what later became irresistible to everyone was unforeseen… The most important thing for our specific purposes is that this approach is far from being in line with genetic interests, permeated with the opposite aspirations to explain the later from the previous. Here, everything is directed toward an independent delineation of the second, with the content strictly corresponding to the conditions of origin. Here, emergence is motivated by the need for reconciliation between ontological extremes. And if this is perfectly fulfilled by wisdom, then any other analogous value is inadmissible due to its very redundancy. This is where speculations about the spirit become important. It is sometimes assumed that it is parallel and, as it were, independent on a par with sophia, but then it would have neither cause nor purpose for being itself. Hence, it is natural that in critical interpretations of the non-canonical book the identity of wisdom and spirit is categorically asserted101 with the assimilation of this understanding by the Apostle Paul102, who was supposedly generally determined by the pneumatology of apocryphal writing103.
Critical calculations are saved, and yet their very precision testifies to the fact that all their parts fit together. This does not speak of an objectivist dispassionateness and forces us to suspect other strains in the interpretation under consideration, in which the spirit is suppressed by wisdom, not without a desire to align these concepts with Philo’s theory, where the former is almost entirely unnoticeable and entirely absorbed by the Logos. All these observations oblige us to a rigorous examination of the true facts. In them, wisdom and the Holy Spirit of God are sometimes presented as equal, interchangeable designations (Prov. Thess. IX:16)—only the two are united not in themselves, but by their source in the divine sending, and in this respect they are identical to one another, like two reflections, correspondingly revealing to our gaze the radiance of the inaccessible sun from different directions. This community, then, points only to the inseparable combiner of all qualities, without in any way merging them. Naturally, Pseudo-Solomon calls the illuminating divine wisdom (IX, 10) not simply spirit, but the spirit of wisdom (VII, 7) – to express its special property in rationality (διὰ τοῦτο εὐξάμην, καὶ φρόνησις ἐδόθη μοι ἐπεκαλεσάμην, καὶ ἦλθέν μοι πνεῦμa σоφίας). Therefore, πνεῦμα does not cover σοφία in its entirety and is for it (I, 4-6) the holy spirit of education (ἅγιον πνεῦμα παιδείας) and love for mankind (φιλάνθρωπον πνεῦμα σοφία), which is inherent in its nature (according to var. lect. φιλ. πν. σοφίας, Lat. benignus est enim spiritus sapientiae). Consequently, wisdom simply contains certain properties of pneumaticity, which do not disappear completely in it. Now the converse necessarily follows, that wisdom is not absolutely adequate to the spirit and does not exhaust its fullness. And we read that “in wisdom is the spirit” (VII, 22: ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῇ – σοφία – πνεῦμα κτλ, Lat. est enim in illa spiritus intellectus – intelligentiae), which therefore enters into the scope of the first only in part, which is why a little later wisdom is already directly mentioned (VII, 24) by the uniqueness of its own being. The variant (ἔστιν) αὐτή or αὕτη (σοφία) πνεῦμα is commonly cited and the basic reading (104) is commented on in its tone, but in fact, even now the same result holds. If we examine the structure of the phrase, we will see that it establishes the equality of wisdom with spirit solely in its known definitions, by which it is likened to sophia, without being so in the totality of its virtues. And since the enumeration encompasses the entire mass of pneumatic features, then we must accept that wisdom, while possessing new, specific attributes, is richer than spirit and again distinct from it. In all these points, the difference is quite characteristic—and the defenders of the opposing view themselves do not hide the fact that pseudo-Solomon, in speaking of the incorruptible Spirit of God dwelling in all things (1 Corinthians 1:1), distinguishes it from wisdom out of a reflex of his original Jewish religious contemplation.105 In this case, we too have no right to infringe on the author’s convictions and soften them for our own reasons.
A certain distinction between spirit and wisdom is undeniable. But alongside this, their close solidarity is no less undeniable, whereby spirit is present in wisdom, and wisdom is inseparable from spirit, for πνεῦμα σοφίας (VII, 7) is not a genitivus appositionis, where the adjective more accurately designates the same object as precisely such (πνεῦμα¬σοφία). This conjecture is not confirmed106 by the parallel mention (1, 5) of πνεῦμα παιδείας, since in it the qualifying energy is irresistible, which in a similar saying emphasizes that wisdom is characteristic of the spirit. This interweaving of two disparate currents—disunity and fusion—is extremely important and facilitates a more precise understanding of both factors. Their relationships, disparate almost to the point of exclusivity, are revealed satisfactorily only on the assumption that they themselves are identical in their source and differ only in the reproduction of its particular manifestations. Naturally, in their bearer, the latter are combined and therefore can be equalized and replaced in a joint testimony to the incarnating principle, in which the power of God is spiritual (XI, 21: λικμηθέντες ὑπὸ πνεύματος δονάμεώς σου). In turn, it is equally true that the reflections of different aspects, without connection to their object, are necessarily separate, revealing different aspects to the perceiving subject.
We further discover that this isolation lacks an independent ontological basis, since each member of the pair derives its being from its object and, when separated from it, cannot exist, just as a ray of light disappears when the sun is hidden. This directly suggests that the personalization of literary representation does not exceed the dimensions of poetic personification and in no way speaks of an individual personality, even if vaguely imagined by the author. For πνεῦμα, which sometimes appears with characteristic hypostaticity (Proverbs 1:7), this is sufficiently illustrated by the quoted example (VII:7), in which the “spirit of wisdom” (πνεῦμα σοφίας) sent from above is identified with divinely enlightened human reason (φρόνησις). This means that in pseudo-Solomon the spirit is not strictly personal, even by design—and this is quite natural for Jewish religious contemplation107 in the pre-Grace era108.
* * *
Notes:
1. See “Christian Reading” 1903, Nos. 2, 5, 8, 10, and 12.
2. A. Edersherm, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah I2, p. 32, and according to the translation of Fr. M. P. Thebes I, p. 41.
3. Edm. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, S. 297 ff.: “Bekanntlich hat derselbe (λόγος) hei Philo- Johannes eine Doppelwurzel: einerseits die rein alttestamentl. Anschauung vom Wort oder vom Geist (Engel) und der Weisheit Gottes, andererseits die hellenisch philosophische Idee vom λόγος als vernünftigem Weltdurch waltungsprinzip. In Soph. Kapitel 7 sehen wir eben den hochinteressanten Prozess der Zusammenwachsung beider Wurzel; denn die ganze Schilderung besonders Vers 22–28 zeigt eine Kombination von Prov.8. φοιτᾶν, διέρχεθαι. διὰ πάντων.” But along with this, it is stated as an indisputable fact that “der eigentliche philosophische Vater des λόγο;-Begriffs in diesem Sinn einer objektiven Weltpotenz Niemand anderes als unser Heraklit ist, obwohl erst die Stoiker jene Idee derart in den Vordergrund gerückt haben.” Then “ausser den Stoikern, denen z.” b. griechische Philosopher des für sich seienden νοῦς, nehmlich Anaxagoras mit seinem λεπτόν oder λεπχότατον zu begegnen.”
4 . O. Pfleiderer, Das Urehristenthum, S. 1162–163.
5. Ernst Teichmann, Die paulinische Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und Gericht, pp. 69–70.
6. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urehristenthum, p. 3051.
7. Dr. Franz Kaulen, Einleitung in die heilige Schrift A. and N. T. II 2, p. 283. D. V. Pospekhov, The Book of Wisdom of Solomon, p. 197.
8. J. A. Schmid. Das Buch der Weisheit, p. 38. † K. Siegfried in Die Apokryphen des A. T. von E. Kautzseh, p. 477.
9. D. V. Pospekhov, The Book of Wisdom of Solomon, p. 349.
10. D. V. Pospekhov on p. 190:1. See also below pp. 640:801, 653:820.
11. E. Echürer, The Jewish People’s Life in the Temple of Jesus Christ II 2, pp. 756-III 3, p. 379.
12. Ed. Reuss, The Old Testament VI, p. 351. Ven. Fred. W. Farrar in Apocrypha ed. by Henry Wace I, p. 407 b.
13. James Drummond, Philo Judaeus I, p. 219.
14. C. Siegfried, Philo von. Alexandria als Ausleger des A. T., S. 8 et cf. 23.
15 . Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 23, S. 271. See also P. Wendland, Art. “Alexandrian Philosophy” in The Jewish Encyclopedia I (New York and London 1901), p. 370.
16. E. Echürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi II 3, S. 757¬III 3, S. 380. Prof. Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 195. Ven. Fred. W. Farrar: History of Interpretation, p. 126 in Apocrypha ed. by Henry Wace I, b. 407 a. Edm. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, S. 294. O. Zöckler in Kurzgefurster Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften A. und N. T. IX, S. 357. R. H. Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, p. 255. Wed. and C. L. W. Grimm in Handbuch zu den Apocryphen des A. T. VI, pp. 19-20.
17. Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, p. 192.
18. K. Siegfried in Die Apokryphen des A. T. von E. Kautzsch, p. 477. D. V. Pospelov, The Book of Wisdom of Solomon, pp. 349-352.
19. D. V. Pospelov on p. 348.
20. Edm. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraclitus von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, p. 297. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, p. 1621, as well as his Vortrag: Das Christusbild des urchristlichen Glaubens in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (Berlin 1903), where the wisdom of pseudo-Solomon is equated with the “Stoic-Heraclitean world spirit.”
21. S. Siegfried, Philosophy of Alexandria as Ausleger des A. T., p. 8.
22. Paul Menzel, Der griechische Einfluss auf Prediger und Weisheit Solomos, pp. 63–64. C. L. W. Grimm in Handbuch zu den Apocryphen des A. T. VI, S. 19. 152ff. 158. Prof. S. H. Tow states that the wisdom of pseudo-Solomon is substantially identical to both the Stoic (Art. “Wisdom Literature” in The Encyclopedia Biblica ed. by Prof. T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black IV, London 1903, col. 5330) and Philo’s Logos (Art. “Book of Wisdom of Solomon” ibid. IV, col. 5341), even though the author himself did not accept Stoic doctrine (col. 5347).
23. James Drummond, Philo Judaeus I, p. 226.
24. James Drummond ibid. I, p. 225.
25. E.g., Paul Menzel, Der griechische Einfluss auf Prediger und Weisheit Solomos, p. 66.
26. James Drummond, Philo Judaeus I, p. 221.
27. James Drummond ibid. I‚ r. 224. Emanatism in the doctrine of wisdom-spirit was found in pseudo-Solomon and † Prof. J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in die apokryphischen Schriften des Alten Testaments (Leipzig 1795), S. 102ff.
28 . Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 195.
29. Max Heinze ibid., S. 196: “sind Anzeichen da, die wenigstens eine Annäherung an den stoischen Materialismus erkennen lassen.”
30. Prof. Hermann Siebeck, Geschichte der Psychologie I, 2, S. 152.
31. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 346. 3472.
32. Michel Nicolas, Des doctrines religieuses des juifs pendant les deux siècles antérieurs à l’ère chrétienne, p.2198,1.
33. Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 201. Cf. And Paul Wendland, Art.”Alexandrian Philosophy” in The Jewish Encyclopedia I, p. 370.
34. E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi II 2, S. 879.157¬111, S. 557.56.
35. James Drummond, Filo Judaeus I, b. 226–229
36. So, for example, O. Kirn, Art. “Logos” in Realencyklopädie von Prof. A. Hauck XI 3, S. 601: 31–34.
37. Michel Nicolas, Des doctrines religieuses des juifs, p. 2052 and cf. 2198:1 on the “word.”
38. James Drummond, Philosophy of Judaeus I, pp. 215, 216–217.
39. D. V. Pospekhov, The Book of Wisdom of Solomon, p. 352.
40. James Drummond, Philosophy of Judaeus I, p. 214.
41. James Drummond ibid. I, p. 215.
42. Max Heinze, The Study of Logos in Greek Philosophy, pp. 194–195.
43. D. V. Pospekhov, The Book of Wisdom of Solomon, pp. 352–353.
44. Paul Menzel, The Greek Influx of Wisdom from the Fathers and the Wisdom of Solomon, pp. 62–63.
45. Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 193–194, 195.
46 . K. G. Bretschneider, Systematische Darstellung der Dogmatik und Moral der apocryphischen Schriften des a. T. I, S. 242: “eine Lichtemanation aus Gott.”
47. Phil. Fried. Keerl: Die Apokryphenfrage, S. 180–182; Die Apokryphen des a. T., S. 37.
48. Max Heinze, Art. “Emanatismus” in Realencyklopädie von Prof. A. Hauck V 3 (Lpzg 1898), S. 333:24–27: “zunächst scheint in der griechischen oder hellenischen Philosophie deutlich von einer Emanation wenigstens einer kosmischen Macht die Rede zu sein in dem Buche von einer der Weisheit, das bekanntlich viel aus der stoischen Lehre herübergenommen hat, in dieser Beziedung aber über die Stoa hinausgeht.”
49. Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 196.
50. Max Heinze ibid., pp. 198–200.
51. See and Rev. Prof. H. W. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 2681.
52. Michel Nicolas, Des doctrines religieuses des juifs pendant deux siècles antérieurs à l’ère chrétienne, p. 1412.
53. Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 23, S. 272.
54. Ed. Zeller ibid. III, 23, pp. 271–272.
55. H. Bois, Essai sur les origines de la philosophie judéo-alexandrine, p. 227 not.
56 . Michel Nicolas, Des doctrines religieuses des juifs pendant deux siècles antérieurs à l’ère chrétienne, p. 1402.
57. Michel Nicolas ibid., p. 198, 2052
58. James Drummond, Philo Judaeus I, p. 226.
59. Ernest Havet, Le Christianisme et ses origines IV, p. 398.
60. J.Fr. Bruch, Die Weisheits-Lehre der Hebräer, p. 349.
61. E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi II 2, pp. 756-III 3, p. 379. Prof. Dr. Friedrich Überweg also says (Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie I, Berlin 31867, p. 226, § 63) that pseudo-Solomon distinguishes wisdom, as the power of God acting in the world, from the divine being itself.
62. E. Schürer ibid. II 2, pp. 757-III 3, p. 379.
63. Ed. Berns, The Old Testament Expanded VI, p. 349. 362.5.
64. H. Bois, Essays on the Origins of Judeo-Alexandrine Philosophy, pp. 253–254. Lic. Dr. Theodore Simon believes that in pseudo-Solomon wisdom is separated from God, in the dignity of hypostasis (Der Logos, Lpzg 1902, p. 18), and that it is only depicted differently under the guise of λόγος, with which it is identical (pp. 30–31). Cf. S. Schulman, Art. “Cardinal Virtues” in The Jewish Encyclopedia III (New York and London 1902), p. 573, as well as Prof. Emil G. Hirsch, Art. “God” ibid. VI (New York and London 1904), p. 4, that sophia in Proverbs 30:1 is a person, but only as an instrument, not as a delegate of God.
65. J. Fr. Bruch, Die Weisheits-Lehre der Hebräer, pp. 349–350, 387.
66. Aug. Ferd. Dähne, Geschichtliche Darstellung der judisch-alexandrinischen Religions-Philosophie, p. 155.
67. A. Fr. Gfrörer, Philo und die jüdisch-alexandrinische Theosophie IP, pp. 227–228, assimilates the author’s idea of personal particularity (“Wesen für sieh”) for wisdom, although pseudo-Solomon did not achieve full awareness of this concept.
68. Prof. Johannes Lücke, Commentary on the Gospel of Johannes I 3 (Bonn 1840), pp. 267–268. Cf. below on pp. 640, 798.
69. Ed. Reuss, The Old Testament Overview VI, p. 347.
70. J. Fr. Bruch, The Wisdom of the Hebrews, p. 335.
71. J. Fr. Bruch ibid., p. 335.
72. O. Pfleiderer, The Wisdom of Solomon, p. 1621.
73. D. V. Pospekhov, The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, p. 432.
74. D. V. Pospekhov on pp. 192–193.
75. See and Rev. E. R. Bernard in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by J. Hastings IV, p. 532a.
76. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 2082.
77. O. Pfleiderer ibid., S. 2092. So even Prof. B. Weiss, Die Religion des Neuen Testaments (Stuttgart und Berlin 1903), S. 197 ff.
78. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 2102.
79. See L. Hackspil, Études sur le milieu religieux et. intellectuel contemporain du Nouveau Testament II: Les êtres intermédiaires § 1 (La Sagesse) in Revue biblique internationale X, 2 (1-er avril 1901), p. 213.
80. L. Hackspil ibid. X, 2, p. 215.
81. L. Hackspil ibid. X, 2, p. 212. 213.
82. L. Hackspil ibid. X, 2, p. 214.
83. Book S. N. Trubetskoy, The Doctrine of the Logos in Its History I (Moscow 1900), p. 88 and in “Problems of Philosophy and Psychology” VIII, 40 (Book V for 1897), p. 826.
84. L. Hackspil in “Revue biblique internationale” X (1901), 2, p. 215.
85. Prof. M. D. Muretov, The Idea of the Logos in the Old Testament in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, p. 462.
86. Prof. M. D. Muretov, The Teaching on the Logos of Philo of Alexandria and John the Theologian in Connection with the Previous Historical Development of the Idea of the Logos in Greek Philosophy and Jewish Theosophy (Moscow, 1885), p. 92.
87. Prof. M. D. Muretov in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, p. 463.
88. Prof. M. D. Muretov in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, pp. 463–468.
89. Prof. M. D. Muretov in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, pp. 467, 468–474, 484–488. 491–493. See also F. Vigouroux, A Guide to Reading and Studying the Bible in the Translation of Fr. Vl. V. Vorontsov II, 1 (Moscow 1902), pp. 993–994.
90. Prof. M. D. Muretov in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, pp. 483 ff. 488. See also above on pp. 637, 769.
91. Prof. M. D. Muretov, The Doctrine of the Logos in Philo of Alexandria and John the Theologian, p. 87.
92. Prof. M. D. Muretov ibid., pp. 88–89.
93. Prof. M. D. Muretov ibid., pp. 90–91.
94. Prof. M. D. Muretov, The Doctrine of Logos in Philo of Alexandria and John the Theologian, p. 92.
95. Prof. M. D. Muretov ibid., pp. 89–90.
96. Prof. M. D. Muretov ibid., pp. 91–92 Cf. and above on pp. 637, 770.
97. Prof. Eduard König, Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit Einschluss der Apokryphen und der Pseudepigraphen des A. T. (Bonn 1893), p. 489.
98. In the same tone, it is said in relation to the book of Wisdom of Solomon about “its important significance for the New Testament teaching on the true λόγος” (A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah I2, p. 32.3 and according to the translation of Fr. M. P. Thebes I, p. 41.3), from which later on (e.g., in Rev. James Moffatt, The Autonomy of Jesus in “The Expositor” 1901, IX, p. 229.1) similarities with the Gospel of John are obtained, in particular, regarding the ideas of spirit and wisdom.
99. Dr. Franz Kaulen, Einleitung in die heilige Schrift A. und X. T. II 2, S. 283: “Von der im Neuen Testamente klar vorgetragenen Lehre über die heilige Dreifaltigkeit erscheint hier schon die Gewissheit der Mehrpersönlichkeit und Wesenseinheit Gottes.” Same with Prof. Dr. Heinrich Reusch, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Freiburg im Breisgau 31868), S. 146. See also pp. 632,712. 653.820.
100. The inclination in this sense is noticeable, for example, in Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 202.
101. See also K. G. Bretschneider, Systematische Darstellung der Dogmatik und Moral der apocryphischen Schriften des a. T. I, S. 246, 249 and 235. Joh. Lücke, Commentary über das Evangelium des Johannes I, S. 267. ed. Grafe in Theologische Abhandlungen C. v. Weizsäcker gewidmet, S. 278. Aug. Ferd. Dähne, Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüdisch-alexandrinischen Religions-Philosophie II, S. 178.
102. Karl Reinhold Köstlin, Der Lehrbegriff des Evangeliums und der Briefe Johannis und die verwandten neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe (Berlin 1843), S. 396. 397.1.
103. See book. I, pp. 850,522.
104. See, for example, James Drummond, Philo Judaeus I, p. 216. Prof. Dr. Franz Feldmann (Textkritische Materialien zum Buch der Weisheit gesammelt aus der sahidischen, syrohexaplarischen und armenischen Übersetzung, Freiburg im Breisgau 1902) accepts the readings -πνεῦμα σοφία for Proverbs Sol. I, 6, ἰδιότητος for II, 23 (see above pp. 512–513) and part ἐν [αὐτῇ] for VII, 226 (S. 42. 46. 58), and Joseph Holtzmann, who does not admit (DiePeschitta zum Buche der Weisheit: eine kritisch-exegetische Studie, Freiburg im Breisgau 1903, S. 32 ff.) Margoliuth’s assumptions (see above pp. 440 ff.), for Vil, 23 prefers (S. 83. 104) νοερόν καθαρὸν λεπτότατον compared to the genitive fall. plural νοερῶν καθαρхмν λεπτότατων.
105. J. Fr. Bruch, Die Weisheits-Lehre der Hebräer, S. 345–346.
106. See James Drummond, Philo Judaens I, p. 216. However, Prof. W. Bousset (Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, pp. 342, 377), even admitting that the biblical-Jewish concept of “sophia” has support almost in Parsism (pp. 490–491), which was already brought in here by Prof. Otto Pfleiderer (Das Christusbild des urchristlichen Glaubens in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung, p. 16), but it is rightly noted (Prof. Dr. Hermann Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments in Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Olden und Neuen Testaments herausg. von Prof. W. Bousset und H. Gunkel I [Göttingen 1903], p. 9 Anm. and cf. 26) that even earlier there were similar religious beliefs, which we – in turn – can consider an echo of the original religious traditions.
107. A. Edersheim testifies that rabbinical references do not at all indicate belief in the personal dignity of the Holy Spirit (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah II, p. 199.1 and according to the Russian translation of Fr. M. P. Thebes I, p. 252.4), which is why “the idea of the latter’s activity in all great events was familiar to Israel at that time, although his individuality was not fully comprehended” (I 2, p. 152.1, p. 193). Cf. and below on pp. 648, 815. For this reason alone, the thesis that “the hypostatic understanding of the Spirit of God (in St. Paul) is a legacy of Judaism” is improbable, from which an even more false conclusion is drawn that such a teaching is inconsistent with the Christian idea of God and therefore does not accurately fall within the scope of Christian views: See Mag. d. theol. Emil Sokolowski, Geist und Leben nach den Schriften des Paulus (Heiligenstadt 1903), p. 2: These 10.
108. In this sense, for the Old Testament consciousness it is established that although the Holy Spirit is revealed before the Word, it is more as an action of God than as a hypostasis (Prof. Friedr. Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, Halle a. S. 21890, p. 34), which is so suppressed by the features of personification (L. Hackspil in “Revue biblique internationale” XI, 1 [1-er January 1902], p. 69), that “in the era of the New Testament the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was still in the process of formation” (p. 71). However, it is no less certain that the earliest Christians already expressed a certain triunity in the deity (see the Very Rev. J. H. Bernard, The Apostolic Benediction in “The Expositor” 1903, XI, pp. 374-375), and St. Paul the Apostle apparently presupposes a distinction between the exalted Christ and the Spirit (Emil Sokolowski, Die Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus in ihren Beziehungen zu einander, p. 226), which is why it is indisputable that even outside human subjectivity a reality is recognized for the second (p. 157), sometimes directly commented on in the sense of personality (see Rev. E. P. Gould, Art. “Spirit” in Encyclopaedia Biblica ed. by Prof. T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black IV, col. 4753). From this point, the presence of the idea of the trinity in the deity in the New Testament is natural: See Prof. Dr. Reinhold Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte I (Erlangen und Leipzig 1895), p. 14.
Source in Russian: Glubokovsky N.N. The Teaching of the Book of Wisdom of Solomon on Divine Wisdom or Spirit in Comparison with the Apostolic // Christian Reading. 1904. No. 5. pp. 615-659.
Illustrative Photo by Brett Jordan: https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-bible-in-close-up-photography-7829651/
———-
First published in this link of The European Times.
