The Book of Wisdom.
The Book of Wisdom.
§ 209. We admit that the Book of Wisdom is filled with many fine thoughts and precepts, and we say that, along with Ecclesiasticus, it excels the rest of the Apocrypha. Yet we can by no means reckon it among the properly and specifically canonical books, [I] because it is not written in the prophetic language but in Greek and [II] because it was not written by a prophet but by Philo. In his preface to Wisdom, Jerome says, “This book has the scent of Greek eloquence,” in which Jerome says Philo was the most skilled (Catalog.). Jerome also says in his preface to the Books of Solomon: “There is still another Book of Solomon, which was written by the son of Sirach, and still another falsely named book that is entitled ‘The Wisdom of Solomon.’ “Several of the ancient writers claim that this is the book of the Jew Philo. In his comments on Wisdom 15, Lyra interprets the enemies who are mentioned there as the Romans because, as he says, “at the time of Philo, the emperor Gaius sent his statue throughout the world to be worshiped as God.” Bonaventure, in his commentary on this passage, says, “The prime efficient cause through the mode of compilation was Philo, the wisest of the Jews, who lived at the time of the apostles.” The occasion, argument, and aim of this writing confirm the opinion of Jerome, Lyra, and Bonaventure about the author of this book. The Roman emperor Gaius, a heathen, because he was worshiped at Rome with a gold, life-size statue (as Suetonius relates, Caligula, c. 22), also wanted to be worshiped at Jerusalem. So he sent a message to the Jews and commanded that his statue be placed in their temple. Terrified by this message, the Jews sent their most learned, most eloquent man, Philo, to Gaius, asking the emperor not to defile their temple with the erection of his statue. The emperor ignored their pleas, however, and commanded Petronius to place his statue in the temple to be worshiped, though the Jews resisted this in vain. (See Josephus, Antiquitat., bk. 18, c. 15.) It was on this occasion that Philo wrote the Book of Wisdom in which he treats in detail the duties of princes, the penalty for idolatry, the blessed death of the devout, the punishment of the wicked, etc., for the comfort of the Jews and the terror of tyrants.
Not only the subject matter and the situation at the time of Philo but also the form of the writing and the method of treatment fit Philo well. It is said of Philo that he was strong in the eloquence of Plato. (Ludov. Vives, commentary on De civ. Dei, bk. 18, c. 20: “The Book of Wisdom is believed to be by Philo, a Jew of Alexandria who lived at the time of the apostles, with whom he was friendly. He was so eloquent in Greek speech that the Greeks said about him: ‘Either Philo is platonizing or Plato is philonizing.’ “) Such Platonic eloquence occurs in the Greek text of this book that the Latin translator was unable to achieve the ornamentation and color of the Greek speech. Plato sets up as the four cardinal virtues prudence, practical wisdom, justice, and manliness. The author of this book includes these in the same number (8:7). In De allegor. legis, bk. 1, Philo speaks about virtues and comments on these words of Moses “A river flowed out from Eden” [Gen. 2:10] as follows: “The river is general virtue; the four headwaters are the virtues flowing from Eden, that is, from the wisdom of God.” In the same manner, the author of the Book of Wisdom divides virtues into four kinds and declares that all of these flow from a single source and from general virtue, which springs from the wisdom of God.
From all of these facts, we draw the following conclusion: Whatever book is not written by a prophet is not in the canon of the Old Testament. (Bellarmine acknowledges the truth of this proposition, De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 4). Yet the Book of Wisdom was not written by a prophet but by Philo, as is clear from the statements cited. Therefore the Book of Wisdom is not in the canon of the Old Testament. Likewise, whatever book was not written before Christ’s birth is not in the canon of the Old Testament. (Matt. 11:13: “The Law and the prophets were until John.”) The Book of Wisdom was not written before Christ’s birth. Therefore the Book of Wisdom is not in the canon of the Old Testament.
§ 210. Bellarmine (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 13, § Sed audiamus, etc.) senses the strength of this argument and writes rashly: “All the ancients claim that this is a book of Solomon. From this it clearly follows that it is canonical.” His words read as follows:
Eusebius (Histor., bk. 4, c. 22) says that Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and the entire chorus of the ancients thought that this was a book of Solomon. In the same manner, this book is quoted in the name of Solomon by Tertullian (De praescript.), Cyprian (Sermon de mortalit.), Hilary (on Psalm 127), Ambrose (Sermon 8 on Psalm 118), Basil (Contra Eunom., bk. 5), and Epiphanius (Haeres., “Anom.”). The fact that St. Jerome (preface to the Books of Solomon) says that this book is thought by many to be the work of the Jew Philo and that St. Augustine (De doctr. Christ., bk. 11, c. 8) says that it is the work of Jesus, son of Sirach, is not contrary to the common opinion of the doctors. The opinions, you see, favor Solomon, not Philo, as the ancients say and as is clear from c. 9 where the author says: “You have chosen me to be king of Your people. You told me to build a sanctuary on Your holy mountain.” Nevertheless these statements were gathered by someone else who many think was Philo—not the Philo who lived after Christ but another, older Philo, who took up the statements of Solomon in Greek as the Holy Spirit dictated. This is the same as in Proverbs 25 where it says those proverbs of Solomon were translated into a book by the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, though before they perhaps were on small pieces of parchment.
So much for Bellarmine.
We respond. (1) The contradiction of the Papist writers in this question is to be noted. Bellarmine, Jodocus Clitovaeus, Sixtus Senensis, etc., claim that the Book of Wisdom is by Solomon. However, Ludovicus Vives (loc. cit.), Johannes Driedo (De script. eccles., bk. 1, c. 4, ad difficult. 4), and Johannes Capistranus (preface to Speculum clericorum) deny this. Likewise, Bellarmine and Genebrardus (Chron., bk. 2) make the compiler Philo older than the Philo who lived at the time of the apostles. However, Lyra makes the author of this book the Philo who lived after Christ and who was a friend of the apostles (on Wisdom 9), as does also Petrus Galatinus in De arcan. Cathol. verit., bk. 1, c. 4, where he declares: “In Proverbs, Solomon had foretold the coming of Christ enigmatically and universally, and Philo taught this in the Book of Wisdom as already fulfilled.” To this he especially applies what is said of the righteous man in c. 2-3. Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth., bk. 1, sect. 2:
Some think that this is the work of the younger Philo, a Jew, a man renowned for his Greek eloquence, who acted as a legate to Emperor Gaius for his people. Others believe that it is the work of another Jew, Philo the Elder, who lived about 170 years before the coming of the Savior at the time of the chief priest Onias. Not only do the stated words of this volume seem to conflict with their opinions, but Josephus himself also openly states that the elder Philo was not a Jew and lists him among the heathen historians and particularly among those who never read the sacred books (Contra Apion., bk. 1).
(2) The claim is made, contrary to the truth, that all the ancients ascribe this book to Solomon. We spoke a little earlier about the opinion of Jerome and Lyra. Augustine, De civ. Dei, bk. 17, c. 20: “Solomon is found to have prophesied in his books, which three have been taken into canonical authority: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. It has been customary, however, to ascribe to Solomon two others—one of which is called Wisdom, the other Ecclesiasticus—because of some similarity of style. The more learned, however, do not doubt that he is not their author, yet the ancient Church, especially the Western, took them into authority” (namely, to be read in the Church). De doctr. Christ., bk. 2, c. 8: “Those two books—one of which is called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus—are said to be Solomon’s because of a certain similarity, since Jesus, son of Sirach, is most consistently given as their author.” Augustine did not simply retract this opinion nor did he acknowledge Solomon as the author of this book, as Bellarmine wants (op. cit.). Instead, he retracted only that which he had said so firmly: that Sirach was the author of this book. His words read this way (Retract., bk. 11, c. 4): “In my second book regarding the author of the book that many call the Wisdom of Solomon, it is not so certain that Jesus, son of Sirach, wrote it, as well as Ecclesiasticus, as I have said. Afterward I learned and discovered that quite probably he was not the author of this book.” Consequently, Alphonsus de Castro (Contra haeres., bk. 1, c. 2) concedes to us that “Augustine claimed that this was not a book of Solomon.”
(3) “But,” says Bellarmine, “Eusebius clearly writes in Hist., bk. 4, c. 22, that ‘Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and the entire chorus of the ancients said that the book that is called “Wisdom” was written by Solomon, just as was Proverbs.’”
We respond. In order that we may pass by the fact that elsewhere Eusebius’s authority has meant little to Bellarmine because he was an Arianizer (De Christ., bk. 1, c. 9, § Ad Irenaeum: “The authority of Tertullian and Eusebius is insignificant in matters of dogma.” De Christ., bk. 2, c. 3, § Alteram: “Eusebius favors the Arians.” De script. eccles., sect. 4, p. 105: “It is a wonder why some modern people wish to defend this Eusebius with such great ardor.”), in this place, we point out that Bellarmine was deceived by the mistake of the interpreter Rufinus. You see, he ought to have translated it this way: “Not only he (Hegesippus) but also Irenaeus and the entire chorus of the ancients have called the Proverbs of Solomon ‘wisdom 
, full of every kind of virtue.’ “From this it is clearly evident that Eusebius was not speaking about the Book of Wisdom but about the Proverbs of Solomon. This is all the more clear because, as can be seen in Eusebius, De praepar. evang., bk. 11, c. De morali Hebraeorum philosophia and in others, the ancients used to call the Proverbs of Solomon 
, as if to say, “that which contains all the precepts of all virtues.” (Cf. Basil, Princ. Proverb.) We see this especially clearly in the Greek text of Eusebius, which reads as follows: 
[“They called the Proverbs of Solomon ‘wisdom all-virtuous’ “]. Here the nature of the syntax demands that these two words 
[“wisdom”] and 
[“Proverbs”] be connected by apposition. Musculus translates this as follows: “Furthermore, not only he but also Irenaeus and the whole chorus of the ancients called the Proverbs of Solomon ‘wisdom filled with virtue of every kind.’ “But if Musculus’s version is suspect, then let us listen to Christophorsonus: “Moreover, not only he but also Irenaeus and the entire throng of ancients believed that the Proverbs of Solomon was a book replete with fine and excellent wisdom.” However, the fact that Eusebius does not acknowledge Solomon as the author of the Book of Wisdom is well-known from Histor., bk. 6, c. 12, where he speaks in this way: “In the books of his Stromata, Clement uses the testimonies of those writings that are controversial and of the book called The Wisdom of Solomon and of that written by Jesus, son of Sirach,” etc. This is also evident from De praeparat. Evang., bk. 12, c. De morali Hebraeorum philosophia.
(4) But Bellarmine says, “Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Basil, and Epiphanius quote the Book of Wisdom under Solomon’s name.”
We respond. In the Greek codices this is called 
[“The Wisdom of Solomon”], and those fathers followed this version. From this, however, one cannot infer that they thought that Solomon wrote this book. After all, among those who quoted this book under the name of Solomon is Eusebius, who clearly denies that Solomon wrote it (Contra Eunom., bk. 5). They quoted it under the name of Solomon by custom because of a similarity to the moral books of Solomon. Augustine, De civ. Dei, bk. 17, c. 20: “Because of their similarity of speech, the custom prevails of calling the Book of Wisdom and Sirach ‘books of Solomon.’ “Augustine again (Speculum): “People think that these are books of Solomon because of a similarity of speech, for all the more learned people do not doubt that they are not his.” If, however, there is some strength in Bellarmine’s argument, Genebrardus could have argued against Bellarmine in favor of the canonical authority of 3 Ezra in the same way: “Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, the author of the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, and Augustine cite this book under the name of Ezra. Therefore its author is Ezra and it is canonical.” Likewise, “Irenaeus, Ambrose, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Basil, and Chrysostom cite 4 Ezra under Ezra’s name. Therefore its author is Ezra and it is a canonical book.” Whatever Bellarmine would respond to these arguments, let that stand as the response to his own argument. What of the fact that Bellarmine himself (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 20) cites under the name of 3 and 4 Ezra the visions that are commonly attributed to Ezra, not because he thought that Ezra wrote them but to speak more briefly and conveniently according to the sense of those who think they are Ezra’s? Joseph is called “the father of Christ” (Luke 3:23) not because he was that by nature but because he was thought to be that. Epiphanius calls it The Wisdom of Solomon, but in that very passage (Haeres. 76 Anomaeorum) he excludes it from the canon.
(5) But even if it really were Solomon’s work, this would not yet make it canonical, since, as Augustine notes (De civ. Dei, bk. 18, c. 38, where he discusses the sacred writers): “It could have happened that they wrote some things by historical diligence and others by divine inspiration.”
(6) It can be shown with a clear argument that Solomon did not write the Book of Wisdom. You see, the author of this book, forgetting the persona he had put on, betrays himself (15:14): “But all the enemies of Your people are most foolish and more miserable than the soul of babes (other versions read: ‘than the souls of babes’), who oppressed them” (
—”abusing their power against the people”). The Latin reads: “ruling over His people.” Yet at Solomon’s time the enemies of the people of Israel were not dominating them, as is evident from the history of the kings. Therefore that book was written neither by Solomon nor at the time of Solomon. Lyra says it in these words: “They were reproaching because, at Philo’s time, the Emperor Gaius sent his statue throughout the world to be worshiped as God.”
(7) But Bellarmine says: “The clearest argument that Solomon is the author of this book can be taken from c. 9 where the author speaks in the persona of Solomon.” We respond. Solomon is introduced through a dramatization [per prosopopoeian] so that the author may gain a greater authority for his exhortation. Horace says, “It will make much difference whether the slave or the master speaks.” Ludovicus Vives, De discipl.: “What is said in whose persona, ours or someone else’s, is very important.” Philo wanted to warn the princes; therefore he introduces Solomon as the speaker, for Solomon was a prince and was renowned as a man of wisdom. Salvianus wrote his Liber ad ecclesiam catholicam under the name of Timothy. He explains the reason for this undertaking in his Epistle ad Salvinum: “So that the insignificance of my person may not take authority away from my salutary writings, because all things said would be evaluated in accord with the person who said them.” And lest Bellarmine should cry out that this response is forced, let us take a similar example that Bellarmine cannot deny. In Canon 84. Apostolorum, the canonical books of both Testaments are listed in the manner of speaking as if the apostles themselves were speaking. They say, “Our books and our acts.” We have the same thing also in canon 28: “He is deposed, as Simon Magus [was deposed] by me, Peter.” Here, Clement, the author of those constitutions, is speaking imitatively, as Turrianus responds in favor of the canons. Nevertheless Bellarmine himself claims that canon 84 is not apostolic. He says, De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 20, § Quod ad priorem:
For Zephirinus, the fifteenth pope from Peter, says, Epistle 1, that there were only seventy Canons of the Apostles or sixty, as some codices have. Furthermore, Hum-bertus, Contra Nicetam, acknowledges only fifty, but this one is the eighty-fourth. Surely Zephirinus knew better than those who followed him how many Canons of the Apostles there were. Therefore it is not without reason that Gelasius, dist. 15, c. Sancta Romana, placed the Canons of the Apostles among the apocryphal writings because some seemed to him to have been corrupted or added to by heretics.
So much for Bellarmine. Similar words occur in Lindanus, Panopl., bk. 3, c. 3, where he says, “It is clear that that canon of the Scriptures was not written completely by the apostles because many things have been included therein that the apostles had not yet written.” From all this we draw this conclusion: One either claims that those canons are by the apostles or he denies it. If those canons are by the apostles, and they still are not counted among the canonical books, then even if Solomon did write the Book of Wisdom, it does not immediately follow that it is canonical. If the canons are not the work of the apostles, though they contain many words that are those of no one but the apostles, then that argument will be a weak one which Bellarmine adduces from c. 9. He says, “It is clear from the words of c. 9 of Wisdom that Solomon is the author of this book because those words can fit no one else but Solomon.” Yet with like reasoning I could infer against Bellarmine: “It is clear from the words of canon 84 that the apostles are its authors because those words can fit no one but the apostles.”
(8) Bellarmine denies that that Jew Philo, who lived at the time of the apostles, is the compiler of this book; he does claim, on the other hand, that some other Philo, much older than the other, gathered those statements of Solomon. One readily understands why he does this: to escape the force of our argument. Every canonical book of the Old Testament was written before the time of Christ and the apostles, etc. But, I ask, what reason does Bellarmine offer for this assertion? What guess? None at all! Jerome, Lyra, Petrus Galatinus, Bonaventure, Sixtus Senensis, etc., attribute it to the Jew Philo, and the ancients do not mention some other Philo who could have been the author of this book. You see, that elder Philo was a Gentile, not a Jew, as Sixtus Senensis teaches (Biblioth., bk. 1, sect. 2, from Josephus, Contra Apion., bk. 1).