One more conjecture presents itself as throwing light on the prayer of the son of Sirach, in all probability the translator and not the original author of the book1, which forms the last chapter of Ecclesiasticus. The occasion of that prayer was the deliverance of the writer from some extreme peril. He had been accused to the king and his life had been in danger. He does not name the king, probably because he had already done so in the Prologue, and had fixed the time when he had come under his power. He does not name the nature of the charge, but the Apologia that follows (Ecclus. li. 13—30) seems to imply that in what he had done he had been pursuing the main object of his life, had been seeking wisdom and instruction (aideíav). May not the charge have been connected with the Greek translation of Ecclesiastes which we have seen good reason to look on as his handiwork? Those pointed words as to the corrupt and oppressive government of the king's provinces (ch. v. 8), those vivid portraits of the old and foolish, or of the young and profligate, king (chs. iv. 13, x. 16), of princes revelling in luxury while the poor were starving (ch. x. 16), might well seem to the cruel and suspicious king to be offensive and dangerous, while the turn for literature which led him to become an author, would naturally also lead him to take cognizance of a new Greek book beginning to be circulated among his Jewish subjects. That the translator's Apologia was successful may partly have been due to the fact that he could point to passages which more than balanced what had given occasion of offence by apparently enjoining the most entire and absolute submission to the king's lightest words, and prohibiting even the mere utterance of discontent (ch. x. 4, 20).

1 This, it may be mentioned, is the view taken by Grotius and Prideaux. They agree in assigning the incident of the peril to the reign of Ptolemy Physcon.

CHAPTER V.

ECCLESIASTES AND THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON.

The coincidences between the teaching of the unknown author of Ecclesiastes and that of the Son of Sirach are, it will be admitted, whatever estimate may be formed of the inferences drawn from them, interesting and suggestive. They at least shew that the one writer was more or less influenced by the other. Those that present themselves on a comparison of the former book with the Wisdom of Solomon are of a very different yet not less suggestive character. Before entering on an examination of them it will be well to sum up briefly all that is known as to the external history of the book to the study of which that comparison invites us. The facts are few and simple. It is not mentioned by name by any pre-Christian writer. The earliest record of its existence is found in the Muratorian Fragment (A.D. 170) where it is said to have been "ab amicis Solomonis in honorem ipsius scripta." An ingenious conjecture of Dr Tregelles suggests, as has been stated above (Note p. 15), that this was a mistaken rendering of a Greek text on which the Latin writer of the Fragment based his Canon, and that the original ascribed the authorship of the book to Philo of Alexandria. The statement that Philo was probably the writer of the book is repeated by Jerome. The book is found in all the great MSS. of the LXX. but these do not carry us further back than the 4th or 5th century of the Christian æra. We have, however, indirect evidence of its existence at an earlier period. Two passages are found in Clement of Rome which make it all but absolutely certain that he must have been acquainted with the book.

(1) Who will say to him, What didst thou? or who will resist the might of his strength? Clem. R. I. 27.

(1) For who will say, What didst thou? or who will resist thy judgment? Wisd. xii. 12.

Who will resist the might of thine arm? Wisd. xi. 22.

(2) Unrighteous envy... by which also death entered into the world. Clem. R. 1. 3.

(2) By envy of the devil death entered into the world. Wisd. ii. 24.

Among the earlier post-apostolic Fathers, and we need not go beyond these for our present purpose, Irenæus is said to have written a book "on various passages of the Wisdom of Solomon and the Epistle to the Hebrews" (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v. 26). Clement of Alexandria quotes the teaching as “divine” (Strom. IV. 16, 17). Tertullian quotes it, sometimes without naming it (Adv. Marc. III. 22), sometimes as being the work of Solomon (Adv. Valent. c. 2). So far we have evidence of its being read and held in honour at the latter part of the first and throughout the second century, but not earlier.

A comparison of the Book of Wisdom with some of the writings of the New Testament leads, however, to the conclusion that it must have been more or less studied between A.D. 50 and A.D. 70. Dr Westcott has called attention (Smith's Dict. of the Bible. Art. Wisdom of Solomon) to some striking parallelisms with the Epistles of St Paul, and these it may be well to bring before the reader.

(1) Wisd. xv. 7. The potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise all such as serve to the contrary.

(2) Wisd. xii. 20. If thou didst punish the enemies of thy people, and the condemned to death, with such deliberation, giving them time and place to repent of their malice...

(3) Wisd. v. 17-19. He shall put on righteousness as a breastplate, and true judgment instead of an helmet. He shall take holiness for an invincible shield,

(1) Rom. ix. 21. Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

(2) Rom. ix. 22. What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.

(3) I Thess. v. 8, Eph. vi. 13 -17. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of sal

4

His severe wrath shall he sharpen for a sword.

vation....Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that

ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

The coincidences of the Wisdom of Solomon with the thoughts and language of the Epistle to the Hebrews are yet more numerous. They are enough, as I have elsewhere endeavoured to shew1, to suggest the thought of identity of authorship. With that hypothesis, however, we are not now concerned, and I content myself with noting a few that are sufficient to establish the conclusion that the former book must have been known to the writer of the latter. Thus in the opening of the Epistle we have the two characteristic words πoλνμeрŵs ("in sundry parts," or "times") agreeing with the Toλvμepés ("manifold") of Wisd. vii. 22, and ȧraúуaoμa ("brightness") with Wisd. vii. 26. In Wisd. xviii. 22 the "Almighty Word" is represented as bringing "the unfeigned commandment as a sharp sword" and in Heb. iv. 12 that Word is described as "sharper than any twoedged sword." In Wisd. i. 6, "God is witness of his reins and a true beholder of his heart," and in Heb. iv. 12 the divine Word is "a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." The following characteristic words are common to both: the "place of repentance" (Wisd. xii. 10; Heb. xii. 17), Moses as the servant (@epárov = "attendant") of God (Wisd. xvii. 21; Heb. iii. 5), Enoch translated, μereréon (Wisd. iv. 10; Heb. xi. 5), 1 See Expositor, Vol. II. Two papers on "the Writings of Apollos."

ÚTÓσTασIS (="substance" or "confidence" Wisd. xvi. 21; Heb. i. 3, iii. 14), teλelóτns (=“perfection" Wisd. vi. 15; Heb. vi. 1), Beßaiwois (=“confirmation" Wisd. vi. 18; Heb. vi. 6), àπoλeiTETаι (="there remaineth” Wisd. xiv. 6; Heb. iv. 6), πрóдρоμos (="fore-runner" Wisd. xii. 8; Heb. vi. 20). The above instances are but a few out of a long list, but they are sufficient for our present purpose. It may be added that both books present numerous parallelisms with the writings of Philo1.

It follows from the facts thus brought together, as well as from an examination of the book itself, that the Wisdom of Solomon was known to Hellenistic Jews early in the Apostolic age, that it probably had its origin in the Jewish School of Alexandria, or that its writer was acquainted with the works of the greatest of the teachers of that school. Looking to the work itself we find that he had at least some knowledge of the ethical teaching of Greek philosophers, and enumerates the four great virtues, of "courage, temperance, justice, prudence" (årdpeia, σwppoσvvý, dikaloσvvý, Opóvnois), as they enumerated them (Wisd. viii. 7). With these data we may proceed to examine the relation in which he stands to the two books which have already been discussed in their relation to each other. The title of his book "Wisdom" indicates that he challenged comparison with the "Wisdom" of the son of Sirach. The form which he adopts for his teaching, his personation of the character of Solomon (Wisd. vii. 7—11, viii. 14, ix. 7, 8), shews that he did not shrink from challenging comparison with Ecclesiastes. A closer scrutiny shews, if I mistake not, that a main purpose of his book was to correct either the teaching of that book, or a current misinterpretation of it. Let us remember in what light it must have presented itself to him. It had not, if our conclusion as to its authorship be right, the claim which comes from the reverence due to the authority of a remote antiquity or an unquestioned acceptance. He must have known that it had not been received as canonical without a serious opposition, that the strictest school of Pharisees had been against its reception, that it had seemed to them tainted with the heresy of Epicureanism and Sadduceeism. If it was

1 See the papers on "the Writings of Apollos" already referred to.