Book of Wisdom?

[jcrichton]

What today we call the Masoretic texts came many centuries later than the Septuagint.

When the Church was finalizing the biblical canon, the masoretic texts were very recent Judaic compilations. It was well known that they were hostile to Christianity, and the texts reflected that reality.

Hi, Ambrose!

…I seem to recall something to the effect that there was no Jewish Canon of the Old Testament… that it was created to counter the Catholic Canon, would this be in the same line as what you’ve posted?

Is there a timeframe that could be viewed/studied on these two canons?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Patrick!

Excellent informative posts!

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

It seems that you are well versed in Biblical History, what can you tell us about the tetragrammaton: YHWH? (If you have info on this, could I open a post for you to share it?)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[po18guy]

I could think of a number of reasons why both books of Maccabees didn’t make the cut. In the case of 2 Maccabees, there’s the fact that it’s a Greek work. Unlike books such as Tobit or Sirach (which were originally composed in Hebrew/Aramaic), Jewish literature in Greek like say, 2 Maccabees or Wisdom of Solomon apparently didn’t become popular in Palestine as they did in the Jewish diaspora, which was where they became big…You’d notice that the books of Maccabees and the later Rabbis (who really helped develop the modern Jewish perception of Hanukkah) emphasize different aspects of a single event (the retaking and the rededication of the Temple): the books celebate the divinely-assisted victory of the small Judaean forces over the more powerful pagan enemy, while the Rabbinic sources choose to ignore the military side of the event and focuses instead on an entirely different aspect (which does not appear in both 1 and 2 Maccabees), the miracle of the oil that never ran out.

Indeed, the diaspora (Greek) writings were viewed as less pure - Jesus, son of Sirach makes note of this at the end of the Book of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, which he translated into Greek. And, the Hasmonean “hijacking” of the high priesthood did not fare well with Aaron’s descendants - never mind that the Hebraic priesthood may never have been recovered otherwise. Politics as usual. Our Lord taught that the worker is due his wage, thus the Maccabees, who shed blood to restore the faith perhaps should have been rewarded with the priesthood. The Messiah also taught the parable that a king would sue for peace against a more formidable foe - thus perhaps justifying the Hasmonean treaty with the Romans. For all we know, this may have lead the Romans to delay the destruction of the temple until after our Lord’s ascension - a fulfilment of prophecy.

Yet, the Maccabees violating the Sabbath (the respect of which would have subjected them to almost certain defeat), was a sticking point with both the legalistic Pharisees and their predecessors, was a foreshadowing of our Lord’s “violation” of the Sabbath - the Sabbath being made for man and not man for the Sabbath. As well, in the grand scheme of things, the Maccabean revolt did restore the practice of Judaism so that our Lord could be born under the Mosaic law in order to fulfill it, more fully fleshed out in Paul’s epistles.

As to the Wisdom of Solomon, it was messianic, but perhaps too Christian for those who ultimately rejected Christ. Many layers of intrigue here.

As always, your historical perspective is greatly appreciated.

 

[patrick457]

Hi, Ambrose!

…I seem to recall something to the effect that there was no Jewish Canon of the Old Testament… that it was created to counter the Catholic Canon, would this be in the same line as what you’ve posted?

Is there a timeframe that could be viewed/studied on these two canons?

Maran atha!

Angel

I’m not Ambrose, but I’ll try to bite.

The idea of ‘canon’ is really a Christian thing. Historically speaking, when we speak of ‘canon’ in the Christian context, it’s always in terms of addition, inclusion. (Of course, all this talk of addition assumes that the canon is still ‘open’.) Really, the only people who subtracted from a developing or even a closed ‘canon’ are the ones who usually ended up being branded as heretics: people like Marcion (he rejected the Old Testament and most of the NT books, only accepting the gospel of Luke and ten of St. Paul’s letters - all of which he altered to agree more with his views) or maybe even the Reformers (because … well, you all already probably know why at this point).

The Jews originally never really had a clear view of ‘canon’. They had a de facto set of literature that are considered to be above the rest and have a sort of special status: the 24 (as per the Jewish way of dividing the books) or 39 (the Christian reckoning) protocanonical OT books, also known as the TaNaKh (Torah, Nevi’im ‘Prophets’, and Ketuvim ‘Writings’).

Since ‘Judaism’ in the ancient sense was not just a ‘religion’ (as we define it today), but a way of life, a culture, the books of the Tanakh (especially the Torah) were revered as the official history and the national constitution of the Jewish people. It was both a religious icon and a cultural text.

But at the same time, there’s also other works that are not really on par with these ‘set-apart’ (‘sacred’) writings but enjoy some sort of relative popularity among certain segments of the Jewish population (but not necessarily all of it): works like Tobit, Sirach, Maccabees, Jubilees or Enoch. Some, like Tobit and Sirach, are very popular (in fact, later Jews still revered the author of Sirach, Ben Sira, and kept producing versions of the story of Tobit down into the Middle Ages); others had a sort of limited fanbase because they have a very specific content. (The very pro-Hasmonean 1 and 2 Maccabees were really for the folks who loved the Hasmonean dynasty; books like Enoch were favored by the more mystic/apocalyptic types.)

Now what seems to have happened is more that early Christians began to consider some of these ‘other’ literature to have the same sacred status as the Tanakh, in effect elevating them; these were pretty much set in stone when the Church got around to the rudiments of canonization. It was really Christians who got entangled with the issues of canon and whatnot; the Jews by contrast never really did anything actively but simply stuck to the de facto system that they’ve been using for years: 24/39 sacred writings. (In other words, the Reformers took out what the early Christians had added in.)

 

[AmbroseSJ]

patrick457:

Now what seems to have happened is more that early Christians began to consider some of these ‘other’ literature to have the same sacred status as the Tanakh, in effect elevating them; these were pretty much set in stone when the Church got around to the rudiments of canonization. It was really Christians who got entangled with the issues of canon and whatnot; the Jews by contrast never really did anything actively but simply stuck to the de facto system that they’ve been using for years: 24/39 sacred writings. (In other words, the Reformers took out what the early Christians had added in.)

Thanks for the good even-handed summation!

However I will add some thoughts…

The Church got “entangled” with the issues of the canon by the Will of God, IMHO. Before Jesus Christ, neither the Israelites, nor 2nd temple Judaism had such a defined core of necessary doctrines which were authoritatively taught first by Jesus during His ministry, and later by his chosen successors the Apostles (what we now call the Magisterium.) This elevates Christian Tradition to a plane of Divine Revelation which was always rather murky and debatable before the Incarnation. Therefore, right from the beginning heresy had to be dealt with swiftly and effectively, as we see right away in the NT.

It is no small matter to determine “the Word of God” authoritatively, while being persecuted from all directions in every sort of way.

It’s not surprising that the Reformers would second guess the canon considering how, in their opinion EVERYTHING was suddenly up for grabs.

 

[jcrichton]

I’m not Ambrose, but I’ll try to bite.

The idea of ‘canon’ is really a Christian thing. Historically speaking, when we speak of ‘canon’ in the Christian context, it’s always in terms of addition, inclusion. (Of course, all this talk of addition assumes that the canon is still ‘open’.) Really, the only people who subtracted from a developing or even a closed ‘canon’ are the ones who usually ended up being branded as heretics: people like Marcion (he rejected the Old Testament and most of the NT books, only accepting the gospel of Luke and ten of St. Paul’s letters - all of which he altered to agree more with his views) or maybe even the Reformers (because … well, you all already probably know why at this point).

The Jews originally never really had a clear view of ‘canon’. They had a de facto set of literature that are considered to be above the rest and have a sort of special status: the 24 (as per the Jewish way of dividing the books) or 39 (the Christian reckoning) protocanonical OT books, also known as the TaNaKh (Torah, Nevi’im ‘Prophets’, and Ketuvim ‘Writings’).

Since ‘Judaism’ in the ancient sense was not just a ‘religion’ (as we define it today), but a way of life, a culture, the books of the Tanakh (especially the Torah) were revered as the official history and the national constitution of the Jewish people. It was both a religious icon and a cultural text.

But at the same time, there’s also other works that are not really on par with these ‘set-apart’ (‘sacred’) writings but enjoy some sort of relative popularity among certain segments of the Jewish population (but not necessarily all of it): works like Tobit, Sirach, Maccabees, Jubilees or Enoch. Some, like Tobit and Sirach, are very popular (in fact, later Jews still revered the author of Sirach, Ben Sira, and kept producing versions of the story of Tobit down into the Middle Ages); others had a sort of limited fanbase because they have a very specific content. (The very pro-Hasmonean 1 and 2 Maccabees were really for the folks who loved the Hasmonean dynasty; books like Enoch were favored by the more mystic/apocalyptic types.)

Now what seems to have happened is more that early Christians began to consider some of these ‘other’ literature to have the same sacred status as the Tanakh, in effect elevating them; these were pretty much set in stone when the Church got around to the rudiments of canonization. It was really Christians who got entangled with the issues of canon and whatnot; the Jews by contrast never really did anything actively but simply stuck to the de facto system that they’ve been using for years: 24/39 sacred writings. (In other words, the Reformers took out what the early Christians had added in.)

Hi, Patrick!

Thanks for the info… there was an issue a while ago where a non-Catholic kept insisting that the Jews had a “canon;” since I have not heard of such thing (other than what was claimed at that time with the “council of Jamnia, held in Yavneh”)–though suspect I wanted to know if anyone had heard of such a “canon.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[po18guy]

Hi, Patrick!

Thanks for the info… there was an issue a while ago where a non-Catholic kept insisting that the Jews had a “canon;” since I have not heard of such thing (other than what was claimed at that time with the “council of Jamnia, held in Yavneh”)–though suspect I wanted to know if anyone had heard of such a “canon.”

Maran atha!

Angel

In 33 AD, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah, or five Mosaic books. They rejected the prophets (plus angels, resurrection) and thus, our Lord. The Pharisees, accepting the full law and prophets, had less of an excuse in rejecting our Lord. And, in Matthew 23, Jesus condemned the Pharisees seven-fold, whereas He told the Sadducees only that they were “greatly mislead.”

 

[patrick457]

In 33 AD, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah, or five Mosaic books. They rejected the prophets (plus angels, resurrection) and thus, our Lord.

I would personally not pin a date on this, because we seriously don’t know when it happened.

And while some later writers did claim that the Sadducees accepted only the Torah, it’s more likely that the historical Sadducees merely did not permit deductions from the other writings such as the prophets as answers to questions about legal or disciplinary matters or some such rather than reject these other books outright as being holy or special.

The Pharisees, accepting the full law and prophets, had less of an excuse in rejecting our Lord. And, in Matthew 23, Jesus condemned the Pharisees seven-fold, whereas He told the Sadducees only that they were “greatly mislead.”

I would actually interpret this in reverse: I actually see Jesus’ brief reply to the Sadducees that they are ‘mistaken’ to be a harsher condemnation than His woes against the Pharisees.

Notice that in Jesus’ many debates against Pharisees, it is always matters of discipline (as we Catholics would say) that is in issue. Most of His debates with the Pharisees centered more on legal and ethical issues (e.g., Is it legal to do this or that on a Sabbath? Is it okay to associate with ‘sinners’ or not? Can one in good conscience pay taxes to Rome?).

The only thing Jesus really condemned about the Pharisees was the behavior of some of them, for not practicing what they preached. He does not so much condemn whatever teaching they believed as their failure to uphold that teaching. In fact, before His woes against the Pharisees, Jesus first acknowledges their authority and commands His Jewish audience to observe what they teach: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do.” (If that isn’t a divine stamp of approval, I don’t know what that is. )

To put all of that in a nutshell: Jesus condemned Pharisees for being hypocrites, not heretics.

It was only with the Sadducees that Jesus got embroiled in a debate centered on an explicitly doctrinal question (the resurrection of the dead). And they are the ones who got an outright “You are wrong” from the Son of God. That should be telling.

And guess which of the two made it past AD 70. I see the preservation of Pharisaic Judaism (pretty much the only strand of second-Temple Judaism that survived those harsh times - well, it and Christianity) as well, God preserving them. The Pharisees were not completely right of course since many of them did not come to accept Jesus, but they were a close second in that they got most of the other stuff right, and I think God acknowledged that. Hey, if we believe the idea that the Jews as a whole will finally acknowledge Jesus before the end, then I think that’s the reason why God allowed them to survive.

 

[po18guy]

Differences in latitude, differences in attitude. I think it safe to say that 30-33 AD is a time frame that is established by scripture as to the Sadducees’ beliefs. Before and after are moot points, no? While both parties rejected the Lord, the seven-fold condemnation is complete. Some may indeed have pondered that and repented. Potential examples are Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, but we cannot be certain. We do know that they performed a work pleasing to God in their care of Christ’s Body. Gamaliel is another.

As to the Sadducees, being corrected was also an act of mercy, as they then heard the truth and were held accountable for it. As much as the message was directed at them, it is intended also for us.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

patrick457:

I would personally not pin a date on this, because we seriously don’t know when it happened.

And while some later writers did claim that the Sadducees accepted only the Torah, it’s more likely that the historical Sadducees merely did not permit deductions from the other writings such as the prophets as answers to questions about legal or disciplinary matters or some such rather than reject these other books outright as being holy or special.

“because we seriously don’t know when it happened.”

When what happened??

“it’s more likely that the historical Sadducees merely did not permit deductions from the other writings such as the prophets as answers to questions about legal or disciplinary matters or some such rather than reject these other books outright as being holy or special.”

That seems to belie their doctrinal belief (or I should say disbelief) in the resurrection. That is not a disciplinary or legal matter, that strikes at the heart of Divine Revelation as found in the Psalms, Wisdom books and Prophets.

Many modern Jews walk in the footsteps of the Sadducees, doubting an after life at all! I have heard many Jews says “our afterlife is to live on in other people’s memories…”

 

[patrick457]

Differences in latitude, differences in attitude. I think it safe to say that 30-33 AD is a time frame that is established by scripture as to the Sadducees’ beliefs. Before and after are moot points, no? While both parties rejected the Lord, the seven-fold condemnation is complete. Some may indeed have pondered that and repented. Potential examples are Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, but we cannot be certain. We do know that they performed a work pleasing to God in their care of Christ’s Body. Gamaliel is another.

You’re forgetting St. Paul. And the Pharisees he appealed to for support in Acts 23. As well as the scribe who asked Jesus what the greatest commandment was and got complimented by Jesus as “not being far from the kingdom of God.” (Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy member of the boulē (‘council’), i.e. the city council that administrated and represented Jerusalem, but he is nowhere said to be a Pharisee.)

It is precisely because the Pharisees are the closest to Jesus in terms of teachings (at least when compared to the Sadducees or the Essenes) that He is in constant dispute with them. Groups that share the most ideology in common often experience the greatest friction.

And to be fair, the Pharisees themselves (all 6,000 of them, according to one estimate) were hardly united, despite the gospels sort of portraying them like a unified Greek chorus - “the Pharisees” - who seemingly appear out of nowhere to challenge Jesus and get rebutted in return. You might be familiar with the school of Shammai, which argued for a stricter interpretation of the Torah, and the school of Hillel, which argued for a more lenient interpretation.

Jesus was actually close to Hillel (who died when Jesus was young) for the most part, in that he taught that the Torah should not be restrictive - hey, Sabbath was made for man, after all. (As an aside, Rabban Gamaliel - St. Paul’s teacher - was of Hillel’s school.) In the case of divorce, however, Jesus sided with Shammai’s strict interpretation that allowed it only for one single reason. (Hillel allowed many excuses for divorce, up to and including the wife spoiling her husband’s dinner )

Here’s the interesting bit: while Shammai’s house prevailed in the era before the destruction of the Temple, after AD 70 it was Hillel’s school that became predominant. The later Rabbis considered Hillel to be so righteous that he was the only person of his generation who would have been worthy of the Holy Spirit, had the Spirit not been withdrawn from Israel since the prophets died (or so they thought.)

 

[patrick457]

“because we seriously don’t know when it happened.”

When what happened??

When the Sadducees set up their ‘canon’ - if they ever set one up in the first place.

“it’s more likely that the historical Sadducees merely did not permit deductions from the other writings such as the prophets as answers to questions about legal or disciplinary matters or some such rather than reject these other books outright as being holy or special.”

That seems to belie their doctrinal belief (or I should say disbelief) in the resurrection. That is not a disciplinary or legal matter, that strikes at the heart of Divine Revelation as found in the Psalms, Wisdom books and Prophets.

Not necessarily. Passages from the Torah have been used as pointing to the resurrection of the dead. Jesus for instance uses God’s statement to Moses when He appeared in the burning bush (“I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”). Later rabbinic sources also engaged in similar creative interpretations: for example, God’s statement in Deuteronomy 32:39 (“I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal”). Another passage is Exodus 15:1 (“Then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song to the LORD”); in late Hebrew, the verb for “sang” here can also be interpreted as “will sing;” in other words, the passage can also be read as “Moses and the people of Israel will sing this song to the LORD” - and how can they sing it in the future if they are not resurrected?

I think the only thing we could infer from this story was that the Sadducees were fundamentalists, literalists. Their interpretation of the Torah was literal (maybe even too literal), and thus they rejected the modes of interpretation that was in vogue among other Jewish groups (and even to an extent in early Christianity) that mined the text further via creative readings and reinterpretations.

In Matthew 16:1-4, Jesus responds to the request of the Pharisees and the Sadducees for a sign by referring to “the sign of Jonah,” but nowhere does Matthew state that such a reference to Jonah would have failed to satisfy Sadducees, which is difficult to imagine if we suppose the Sadducees rejected the Prophets.

And another thing. Jesus has an argument with “the Jews” in John 8:48-59. Since the resurrection of the dead / eternal life is apparently the topic in this passage, some have interpreted “the Jews” in this passage to actually be Sadducees. But here “the Jews” make reference to Abraham and the prophets as authoritative examples. (“Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died!”)

Besides, I think it’s totally unthinkable that the Sadducees rejected the Prophets and the Writings outright: for instance, the Psalms are after all used in the daily Temple liturgy!

Technically, the idea that the Sadducees did not accept the prophetic books rest more upon references from later Christian authors (who lived long after they went extinct) like Origen and St. Jerome, who actually seem more to have confused the then-extinct Sadducees with the Samaritans, who do accept only the Torah.

Many modern Jews walk in the footsteps of the Sadducees, doubting an after life at all! I have heard many Jews says “our afterlife is to live on in other people’s memories…”

 

[Bookcat]

Indeed.

Along with the rest of the “Wisdom Books” of the Bible.

scepterpublishers.org/collections/navarre-bibles/products/the-navarre-bible-wisdom

 

[jcrichton]

In 33 AD, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah, or five Mosaic books. They rejected the prophets (plus angels, resurrection) and thus, our Lord. The Pharisees, accepting the full law and prophets, had less of an excuse in rejecting our Lord. And, in Matthew 23, Jesus condemned the Pharisees seven-fold, whereas He told the Sadducees only that they were “greatly mislead.”

Hi!

…thanks again!

…what you’ve stated about the different situation (Pharisees and Sadducees) is demonstrative of Christ Word:

48 But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.

(St. Luke 12:48)
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[patrick457]

Speaking of the book:

The interesting thing about Wisdom is that while the title eventually given to it ascribes it to Solomon (“Wisdom of Solomon”), many - even in the early Church - did not take this attribution seriously. To be fair though, it’s pretty transparent that it was originally written in Greek by a Diaspora Jew. (The author does use a feature characteristic of Hebrew verse, but otherwise he uses a full range of Greek poetic devices and vocabulary.) Even the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article on the book admits that

As far back as St. Jerome (Praef. in libros Salomonis), it has been felt that not Hebrew but Greek was the original language of the Book of Wisdom, and this verdict is so powerfully confirmed by the literary features of the entire Greek text, that one may well wonder that the theory of an ancient Hebrew original, or of any original other than Greek, should have ever been seriously maintained.

Of course the fact that the entire Book of Wisdom was composed in Greek rules out its Solomonic authorship. It is indeed true that ecclesiastical writers of the first centuries commonly assumed this authorship on the basis of the title of the book, apparently confirmed by those passages (ix, 7, 8, 12; cf. vii, 1, 5; viii, 13, 14, etc.) where the one speaking is clearly King Solomon. But this view of the matter never was unanimous in the Early Christian Church, and in the course of time a middle position between its total affirmation and its total rejection was suggested. The Book of Wisdom, it was said, is Solomon’s inasmuch as it is based on Solomonic works which are now lost, but which were known to and utilized by a hellenistic Jew centuries after Solomon’s death. This middle view is but a weak attempt at saving something of the full Solomonic authorship affirmed in earlier ages. “It is a supposition which has no positive arguments in its favour, and which, in itself, is improbable, since it assumes the existence of Solomonic writings of which there is no trace, and which would have been known only to the writer of the Book of Wisdom” (Cornely-Hagen, “Introd. in Libros Sacros, Compendium,” Paris, 1909, p. 361). At the present day, it is freely admitted that Solomon is not the writer of the Book of Wisdom, “which has been ascribed to him because its author, through a literary fiction, speaks as if he were the Son of David” (Vigouroux, “Manuel Biblique”, II, n. 868. See also the notice prefixed to the Book of Wisdom in the current editions of the Douai Version).

 

[po18guy]

Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) was likely not Solomon, either. Such attribution was an ancient literary device. And, only about half of the Psalms are attributed to David.

 

[SnoopSword]

Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) was likely not Solomon, either. Such attribution was an ancient literary device. And, only about half of the Psalms are attributed to David.

The Quran says that David did not write the Psalms. It implies it was written by ‘inspired’ intermediaries like angels etc. They are likely trying to distance David from the Psalms because of this:

Acts 2:29 “Men and brethren, let me SPEAK FREELY to you of the patriarch DAVID, that he IS both DEAD AND BURIED, and HIS TOMB is with us TO THIS DAY.

BUT WHY DOES PAUL SAY THIS? HMMMM… LETS SEE:

2 Samuel 11 “Then David sent messengers, and TOOK HER; and she came to him, and HE LAY WITH HER, for she was CLEANSED FROM HER IMPURITY; and she returned to her house.” (Rape and Adultery then First degree Murder on her husband) “The thing David had done displeased the Lord” (2 Sam. 11:27) God does not blame Bathsheba

King David had 8 WIVES: Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah; later Michal and Bathsheba. (2 Sam12:8) But… God wanted to give David even MORE wives–VIOLATES Gen 2:24 and Christ Mat 19:6 “they are no longer TWO but ONE flesh”

David failed to discipline his sons. His son Amnon committed the sin of RAPE and INCEST; he was MURDERED by David’s son Absalom (2 Sam 13:14-29)

As a punishment for having Uriah KILLED, God will have David’s wives RAPED by his NEIGHBOR while EVERYONE ELSE WATCHES. It turns out that the “neighbor” that God sends is David’s OWN SON, Absalom (2 Sam 16:22,12:11-12)

David responsible for the death of 70,000 people (2 Sam 24:1-9; 15; 1 Chr 21:7-17)

David wanted to build God a “house” in Jerusalem. God told David that he could NOT build the Temple because he was a “MAN OF BLOOD” (2 Sam 7:1-2; 1 Kgs 5:16)

Psalms 9:11 Sing praises to the Lord, who dwells in Jerusalem! - (yeah… ummm… I think I’ll pass on that)

 

[Nelka]

It is one of my favourite old testament books.