Heresy IX, Of the Books of Wisdom and of Ecclesiasticus

OF THE BOOKS OF WISDOM AND OF ECCLESIASTICUS — Heresy IX (De Libris Sapientiae et Ecclesiastici. Haeresis IX)

That the book of Wisdom is inscribed with the name of Solomon falsely; and that, accordingly, together with the book of Ecclesiasticus, it is [to be] excluded from the canon of the holy volumes.

ASSERTORES HVIVS HAERESEOS [The Assertors of this Heresy]

This proposed error, of old defended by certain remnants of the Pelagians (as Hilary writes to Augustine), and lately restored by the Anabaptists and Lutherans, asserts two [things]. The first is, that the author of the book of Wisdom is not Solomon, but Philo the Jew, an Alexandrian by fatherland, most skilled in the Greek tongue — concerning whom, on account of the likeness of Platonic diction which he had, it was said: ἢ Πλάτων φιλωνίζει, ἢ Φίλων πλατωνίζει (e Platon philonizei, e Philon platonizei) — that is, “either Plato follows [imitates] Philo, or Philo [follows] Plato.” The other is, that neither of these volumes is canonical. Which assertions — as the first [we shall show] to be uncertain and rashly asserted, so the second we shall show to be openly heretical. ¹

IMPVGNATIO [The Refutation]

And indeed, if the book of Wisdom was put forth by Philo the Jew, it ought not to be numbered among the books of the Old Instrument [Testament], but to be reckoned among the volumes of the New Testament: seeing that its author, Philo, flourished after the times of Christ, under Caius [Gaius/Caligula] Caesar — to whom (as he himself wrote in the book concerning his embassy [Legatio ad Gaium]) he was sent, [while] a very young man, as legate of the Jews. Wherefore, since the Church places this book back among the others of the Old Testament — which, by the common custom of the Church, are for this reason called books of the Old Testament, because they were composed before the giving of the New Testament — it is manifest that it [the book of Wisdom] is not [the work] of the Jew Philo, who became renowned under the New Testament. ²

Next (Deinde), in the second chapter of this book, the author, by a prophetic spirit, describes the future attempts of the Jews against Christ, saying: “Come (Venite), let us circumvent the just one: for he is unprofitable to us, and contrary to our works, and upbraids us with sins against the law, and defames among us the sins of our discipline [training]. He promises that he has the knowledge of God, and names himself the Son of God. Let us see, therefore, whether his words be true; and let us try what things shall come to him, and we shall know what shall be his last end. For if he be the true Son of God, he will receive him, and will free him from the hands of the adversaries. With contumely and torment let us question him, that we may know his reverence, and may prove his patience; with a most shameful death let us condemn him.” Which words, as the Catholic Church believes and preaches, [treat] openly of the future passion ³

(printed p. 647)

[the words of Wisdom ch. 2 contain a] prophecy [also] of the death of Christ; which, since in the time of Philo it was already fulfilled, it follows that he was not the writer of this prophecy.

To this (Ad hoc) also there accedes, that the author of this book, in the same second chapter, detests the envy, emulation, and zeal [malice] of the impious Jews against that same just one, Christ, and execrates their grave malice and impiety — which it is not verisimilar that Philo did, a man most celebrated among his own, and always held in the highest honor, and besides this always versed in the law of the Jews, and alien from the worship of Christ; lest, accusing so freely and openly the so recent crime of his own fathers, he should stir up the hatred of his own [people] against himself. ⁴

Besides (Praeterea), the blessed Dionysius the Areopagite brings forth a testimony out of this book, in the first part of the fourth chapter of the book On the Divine Names, saying that, among the first institutions [foundations] of the scriptures, [Solomon] said certain things about the divine Wisdom more copiously: “I became a lover (Amator factus sum) of her beauty” — which is taken out of the eighth chapter of this book. Nor is it to be believed that the blessed Dionysius cited this out of the book of Philo, [as] now newly published, since he calls that book [one of] “the first institutions of the scriptures”: which indicates that the book was not then first sent forth into the light, but composed many ages before, in that first institution of the divine scriptures. Which book, even if it were possible that the blessed Dionysius saw it newly published, it is still not verisimilar that so great a father would have deigned to lean, in a most grave matter, upon the authority of Philo. ⁵

There exists (Extat) also a catalogue of all the works of Philo, in Eusebius, book 2 of the Ecclesiastical History, ch. 18, and in Jerome, in the book On Illustrious Men — in which [catalogue] the book of Wisdom is nowhere named.

But because (Verum) some of the Lutherans saw that the aforesaid [arguments] stood in the way of their opinion, therefore, that they might extricate themselves from these [difficulties], they said that there were two Philos: one after the times of Christ, under the emperors Caius [Gaius], and Claudius, and Nero, of whom Eusebius and Jerome make mention; but the other more ancient, most eloquent in Greek fluency, above a hundred and sixty years before the birth of Christ, in the times of Onias the pontiff of the Jews — and [they say] that this one was the author of the book of Wisdom.

Which opinion those things wholly contradict which the author, in the ninth chapter of this book, writes concerning himself — asserting that he was king of Israel, and in the city of Jerusalem built a temple to God, in these words: “But thou (Tu autem), O Lord, hast chosen me [to be] king of thy people, and judge of thy sons and daughters; and hast said [bidden] me to build a temple in thy holy mount, and an altar in the city of thy habitation, a likeness of thy holy tabernacle, which thou hast prepared from the beginning.” Which words, assuredly, can be accommodated to neither of these Philos — who were neither kings in Jerusalem, nor built a temple in it — but agree with Solomon alone, who reigned at Jerusalem, and first set up a temple to God; and who, as the wisest of all kings, composed this noble book of Wisdom, in whose aforesaid chapter he wrote that he prayed to God for the obtaining of wisdom, unto the rightly governing of the people, as is written in the third book of Kings. ⁶

But above all (Sed super omnia), the authority of the Catholic Church, and the common consensus of the fathers, declare Solomon [to be] the author of this book. For the Church every year, on the fourth feria [Wednesday] of Pentecost, in the most holy mysteries, chants [decantat] the first sentence of this book, saying: “Solomon said (Dixit Salomon) to his sons: Love justice, you that judge the earth.” With whom all the fathers, as well Greek as Latin, agree. And first, of the Greeks, Eusebius, book 4 of the Ecclesiastical History, ch. 22, thus says: “But indeed (Verum) this Hegesippus [Egesippus] also, and Irenaeus, and the whole choir of the ancients, called the book which is entitled ‘the Wisdom of Solomon,’ [Solomon’s] — just as also the Proverbs.” And Epiphanius, in the book On Weights and Measures, believed the book of Wisdom — called πανάρετον (panareton) [all-virtuous], from every virtue which is contained in it — to be Solomon’s. And John Damascene, book 4, ch. 18, attributed the book of Wisdom, stuffed [full] with the doctrine of all virtues, to Solomon [as] author. But among the Latins, the blessed Ambrose, in the book On the Four Difficult Questions, makes Solomon the author of this book, thus saying: “In the book of Wisdom, Solomon relates that he besought the Lord, saying: ‘I went to [approached] the Lord, and besought him: Give me, O Lord, wisdom, the assistant [attendant] of thy seats [throne].’” Augustine likewise — when at some time he had asserted that this book was not Solomon’s — at length, recognizing his opinion [to be] but little probable, retracted [it] in the second book of the Retractations, ch. 4. From these [things], therefore, it is left proved that the book of Wisdom was composed by Solomon.

And as to the fact (Quod autem) that the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach [Syrach] — which is called Ecclesiasticus — are received into the canon of the holy scriptures, it is demonstrated by the attestation of the New Testament, by the authority of the Church, by the determination of the councils, and by the testimony of the most ancient fathers. For Paul, to the Romans in the eleventh [chapter], and to the Hebrews in the eleventh, alleges sentences [sayings] of Wisdom out of the 9th, 6th, and 4th chapters; and Peter and James, each in the first chapter of their epistles, bring forth testimonies out of the 14th chapter of Ecclesiasticus. The same do, of the book of Wisdom, Clement the Roman Pontiff in [his] first epistle, Anacletus in the second, Evaristus in the first epistle to the Africans. Similarly, of the book of Ecclesiasticus, the same do Fabian, Pope [the first], who in [his] second epistle to all the Eastern bishops takes words out of its 10th and 11th chapter; and Sixtus, Pope the first, received out of the 24th chapter of the same volume that [saying]: “I (Ego) came forth out of the mouth of the Most High, and alone compassed [went round] the circuit of heaven.” John Damascene, making mention of each volume, in book 4, On the Faith, thus writes: “ΠΑΝΑΡΕΤΟΣ (Panaretos [the All-virtuous]) — that is, the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, that is, Ecclesiasticus — [these] are indeed virtuous and good, but they are not numbered [in the canon], nor did they lie in the ark; and therefore, although among the Jews they are not numbered, yet among the faithful they are held of the greatest authority.” Augustine, in book 2 On Christian Doctrine, says: “Those two books — one which is entitled Wisdom, and the other which is entitled Ecclesiasticus — since they have merited to be received into authority, are to be numbered among the prophetic [books].” And in book 1 On the Predestination of the Saints, ch. 14, of the book of Wisdom he thus says: “But (Sed), those who wish to be instructed by [the sayings of] the commentators [tractatores], it behooves that [they consider] also that book of Wisdom, where it is read: ‘He was snatched away (Raptus est), lest malice should change his heart’ — [a book quoted] by all the commentators” ⁷

(printed p. 648)

[they should prefer that book of Wisdom] to all the commentaries [tractationibus] which they [have otherwise] preferred to themselves — [a book] which even the excellent commentators of the times nearest to the Apostles preferred to themselves, who, adducing it as a witness, believed that they were adducing nothing but a divine testimony. Not, therefore, ought the book of Wisdom — which is read in the Church of Christ through so great a multitude of years, in which this [saying] too is read — to suffer injury, nor ought its testimony [sentence] to be repudiated: [a book] which has merited to be recited in the Church of Christ through so long an antiquity of years, and to be heard by all Christians, from the bishops down to the lowest laity, with the veneration of divine authority. To which testimonies of the fathers there accedes, at last, the authority of the third Council of Carthage, and of the great Lateran Council, and the epistle of Pope Innocent to Exuperius, and the catalogue of Gelasius — in [all of] which each book of Wisdom [i.e. both Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus] is numbered [in].

OBIECTIONES HAERETICORVM [The Objections of the Heretics]

1. That the book of Wisdom is not Solomon’s, Jerome testifies in the prologue to the books of Solomon, calling it a book ψευδεπίγραφον (pseudepigraphon) — that is, falsely inscribed [ascribed] to Solomon, since it is [the work] of Philo the Jew, and nowhere exists among the Hebrews, and its very style savors of Greek eloquence. To whom subscribing, Augustine, in book 2 On Christian Doctrine, thus speaks: “For (Nam) two books — the first, which is [entitled] Wisdom, and the other, which is entitled Ecclesiasticus — are said to be Solomon’s, from a certain likeness [to him]; for Jesus son of Sirach is most constantly reported to have written them.” And in the seventeenth book On the City of God he says, to the same effect: “Two other (Alii duo) books, of which the one [is] Wisdom, the other truly Ecclesiasticus — on account of some likeness of eloquence, custom has obtained that they be called Solomon’s; but that they are not his, the more learned do not doubt.” ⁸

2. And that neither of these volumes has canonical authority, Jerome, in the aforesaid prologue, is a witness, saying: “There is reported (Fertur) also the Panaretos [All-virtuous] of Jesus son of Sirach, and another pseudepigraphus [falsely-titled book], which is inscribed ‘the Wisdom of Solomon’”; and a little after: “As, therefore, the Church indeed reads the books of Judith, and of Tobit, and of the Maccabees, but does not receive [them] among the canonical scriptures — so also [it reads] these two volumes for the edification of the people, not for confirming the authority of the ecclesiastical dogmas.” And again, in the Helmeted Prologue [Prologus galeatus], he thus speaks: “Therefore (Igitur) the Wisdom which is commonly inscribed [with the name] of Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, are not in the canon.” Which he confirms also in the explanation of the eighth and eleventh chapter of Zechariah [Zacharias]. But Epiphanius, concerning each book, in the little treatise On Weights and Measures, writes these things: “For (Nam) two books [are] written in verse — the Wisdom of Solomon, called Panaretos [All-virtuous] from every wisdom, and the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach — and of his grandson Jesus, who wrote that Wisdom in Hebrew, so that his grandson interpreted [translated] it, that is, wrote it in Greek: [these] are indeed useful and commodious, but they are not reckoned into the number of the received [books].” Isidore also, in the sixth book of the Etymologies, ch. 2, rejects the book of Ecclesiasticus among the apocrypha. But neither Gregory the Theologian [Nazianzen], nor Eusebius, nor Origen, nor any of the ancients, reckons these books in the catalogue of the divine volumes.

SOLVTIO [The Solution]

1. Unjustly do the heretics impute to Jerome what he himself does not assert, but writes by way of reporting — not himself believing it, but narrating that certain ancient writers, that is, the Jews, believed it. For he says: “The Jews (Iudaei) have affirmed it to be Philo’s” — so that they thought that Philo collected together the sentences [sayings] of this book, first put forth by Solomon and [then] dispersed, and compressed [them] into one volume, which afterward, from the name of the collector, was by some called “the Wisdom of Philo.” But Augustine retracted the sentences [he had] adduced [advanced], in the second book of the Retractations, ch. 8, in these words: “What (Quod) I said concerning the author of the book which many call ‘the Wisdom of Solomon’ — that Jesus son of Sirach wrote it also, just as [he wrote] Ecclesiasticus — I afterward learned does not so stand [is not so certain] as was said by me; and I found it altogether more probable that this [man] is not the author of that book.”

2. But as to the words of Jerome, asserting that the book of Wisdom is not received into the canon by the Church, we respond — as we have also said elsewhere — that he understood this of the Church of his own times: to which, since it did not yet sufficiently openly stand [established] concerning the authority of these volumes, it [the Church] did not dare to receive them into the canon for the proof of dogmas; but a little afterward, being more fully taught by the Holy Spirit, in the third Council of Carthage it received each volume, and thereupon the following Councils numbered each in the sacred catalogues. But if Origen and certain other fathers rejected these books from the Canon, it does not on that account follow that they are in no way canonical; but this only is gathered from the authority of those fathers — namely, that books of this kind are not of the number of the scriptures which pertain to the first order [rank] of the Canon, and concerning which there was never any doubt: which neither do we deny. For we have placed each in the second order of the canonical volumes. It is plain, therefore, that the Parenetic [hortatory] books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are, by the best right, numbered among the holy writings; concerning which, since enough has been said, let us pass on, at last, to the order of the Historical volumes.