By Professor Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky
Now we have a solid exegetical thesis: the non-canonical book under analysis personifies divine wisdom, remaining below the norm, where the hypostatic nature of a copy identical to the original would be. Equally important is the crucial conclusion that the motivation, support, and material for this undeniably sublime and plastic personification are drawn entirely from the real object itself, which compelled its description with individualistic vividness, although it was not clearly grasped due to its strictly personal typicality.
Both of these points are valuable in themselves and are extremely important for further research into the origin and nature of the concept under consideration. If it more strongly and more firmly establishes the essential connection between the natural inseparability of wisdom and God, and the former resides in all created things, then, obviously, there is no primordial dualistic duality, where matter is an independent principle and has no direct contact with the deity. In turn, the convergence and fusion of sophia with pneumaticity precludes any discussion of the dualistic adversariality of spirit and materiality.127 While all this is true, we must accept that the author personifies not at all out of the interests of reconciling incompatible extremes, which is why his speculation does not presuppose dualistic principles and—consequently—does not reflect them at all. At this point, we necessarily return to our ontological-cosmological observations and, confirming them with independent data of a different order, we again draw new support. It is commonly asserted that Pseudo-Solomon professed a metaphysical-anthropological dualism, which renders God’s own influence on the material substratum impossible, requiring the peacemaking process to require an external, reconciling agency. But for such a mission to succeed, it is imperative that this agent be distinct from both sides and not dissolve into them. This inevitably creates a bias toward personal representation, which serves as both a necessary satisfaction and a factual confirmation of the dualistic premises. Here, one is inseparable from the other. We previously failed to discover the original dualistic duality, and now, in accordance with this result, it is revealed that there is no mediation with the dualistic character of a unifying personality, since everywhere before us appears the personification of the power of God, permeating the entire universe inseparably from the Lord.128 This harmonious solidarity is the highest justification, which, while true in general, also warns us in the particular case that we should not seek out dualistic preconditions for it and force it to conform to them. And contrary to philosophical interpretations, it is reasonably stated that “our book contains not the slightest hint of the metaphysical necessity of the mediating role of Sophia-Logos between the abstract, predicateless Divinity and the individual, concrete realm of being.” 129 This is undeniable in the doctrine of creation by God Himself, where it cannot be argued that the Lord is inaccurately named instead of wisdom, since it remains an axiom for any interpretation that it is precisely the latter that replaces, at least in the form of individualistic detachment. Therefore, it is quite indisputable in all respects that the non-canonical document advances its concept not for the theoretical needs of a philosophical-religious construction, in which the desired unity would not be achieved. It then follows directly that this is not an artificial concept of subjective ingenuity, not the fruit of logical operations without a factual basis, but—in the eyes of the author—it reproduced the living energy of divine activity itself. Pseudo-Solomon mentions it only because he is convinced of its real existence. The origin of the idea will be objective, and it accordingly imprints itself on its nature only in its inherent typicality.
Thus we come to a consideration of the predicates of wisdom. If it is not invoked for Stoic-pantheistic needs, then we lose all grounds for commenting on it in such a tone, and such attempts would be a tendentious imposition of something unrelated. The refined terminology of qualifications, with its scholastic-philosophical overtones, is considered a sharp rebuke of our view. On this subject, conservative Oczegetes admit130 that, building on the soil of Old Testament images, the mysterious preacher adhered to them in his very hypostasis131.
However, the literary description rather suggests that the biblical principles employed have been philosophically reworked in the spirit of logology.132 This is why, even while perceiving a theological doctrine here, they liken wisdom to the Stoic logos133 or the world soul.134 Given such difficulties, the hypothesis that Stoic-pantheistic definitions pertain exclusively to the cosmic revelation of the deity,135 when it permeates and animates everything immanently, combining Stoic-pantheistic descriptions, seems much more feasible. The entire commentary is conducted in this tone, without any considerations or philosophical echoes in the discourse on eternal Sophia.136 In our opinion, this method lacks firm exegetical support. It is completely unfavorable given the compelling fact that the very distinction in wisdom is not marked by the non-canonical book with even the slightest clarity. Naturally, it would be even less legitimate to classify according to scale, the existence of which is entirely doubtful. It is not surprising that stable stability cannot be achieved in this way. And we know that, for example, purity is assigned to both forms (VII, 22, 25 and cf. 23 fin. 24) without any distinction, but the same is true for the epithet φιλάνθρωπος (VII, 23 init. I, 8), which is then applied to the righteous (XII, 19), and it is taken from the Stoic vocabulary. 137 Then, the philosophical imprint in the two groups of predicates adopted is certainly equal in the brightness of coloring, for the latter is everywhere strictly individual and does not dissolve into abstract objectlessness. One must, without any pretense, agree that pseudo-Solomon’s vocabulary is clearly philosophical in its entire enumeration of the attributes of wisdom. 138 Denial of this runs up against the deadly acuity of all the exegetical-philological evidence and, failing to yield fruitful results, diminishes the credibility of biblical apologetics itself. It must be acknowledged that sophia appears to us in a stoic-pantheistic garb. Given its origins in dualistic demands, it follows naturally that it is a pantheistic-stoic speculation. This is not at all immediately apparent if the concept arises independently of such precedents. Then it is equally possible that it absorbs the conceived qualifications, without being exhausted by them, and therefore will be superior to them in its dignity. This is precisely what the case under consideration is. For this reason, we have recognized that in it the Lord is conceived in the essential wisdom of His nature and all manifestations. But it is hardly plausible that an author imbued with biblical contemplation and appealing with it against rational human wisdom would dare to imagine and depict the God of Israel himself in a Stoic and pantheistic manner. In fact, in his writing, we see that everything is reduced to divine wisdom, which therefore permeates all being and serves as the eternally animating spirit of everything. Clearly, in this capacity, it perceives a pantheistic omnipresence and is described in corresponding language, but the source of its energy presupposes an extra-cosmic divinity, separate from the world as created. Why would this wisdom not be pantheistic, since its divinity is not dissolved in phenomenality and is concentrated beyond the boundaries of all existence? On the other hand, creating all things and governing all things vitally, sophia possesses all the attributes of the Stoic Logos, for it is the animating, rational force of the universe. Naturally, the author here employs Stoic vocabulary. Yet, for him, “spirit” is not limited to cosmic finitude and enters into it only through its effectiveness, in accordance with the beneficent-spiritual energy of the supreme God. For this reason, wisdom will be anything but Stoic, as a divinely cosmic, animating principle. Ultimately, it turns out that Sophia—in the view of pseudo-Solomon—perfectly possesses those qualities that were proclaimed with partisan extremity by Stoicism and pantheism. Therefore, it is normal and just that these relationships are characterized by terms developed in these schools and inevitable in the literary discourse of the time. At the same time, it is equally true that this by no means encompassed the full richness of the subject, who was merely the bearer of these qualifications, without identifying with them. He unquestionably transcends philosophical speculation, and therefore even particular reflections are unrelated to them in their nature. Such a conclusion is logically obligatory, and from its principle, it necessarily perceives its reality, alien to philosophical-theoretical abstraction. This is also illustrated by a detailed analysis of certain convergences. Of these, emanatic materialism is particularly suitable here.139 It is inescapable under dualistic assumptions. They establish the mediation of two incompatible adversarialities, which are united in this intercessor. The latter turns out to be the center of the intercourse of natures, each of which is imbued with an opposing character. Since all this is allowed for the genesis of phenomenal cosmicity as an indisputable reality, divine pneumaticity turns into an abstraction and, in fact, was immanently omnipresent with cosmic reason. In fact, it turns out that in these systems we have only the materialization of spirituality, although the spiritualization of materiality is also a refined materialism. Moreover, the very adversity of the deity to the material substrate compels us to the doctrine that the former approaches involuntarily—by mechanical rejection and an uncontrollable “outflow” from its essence. The very harmony of this line of reasoning convinces us of its inseparability from conditional dogmatic prerequisites, which pseudo-Solomon lacked, making it clear that he could not accept unmotivated conclusions. And we know that for him, wisdom, abiding in the material world, lives in it only through divine activity, but its very being rests directly in God, from whom it derives its entire nature. If it were material, it would follow that the Lord himself is material, but this is in every way absurd and is not emphasized in the least in the monument under consideration, where even the critics themselves try to discover completely opposite tendencies towards the spiritualistic self-imprisonment of Jehovah. Then, in the author’s eyes, sophia would be immaterial,140 and an emanatic origin for it would be inconceivable,141 especially since, substantially, it always remains in God.
This example clearly demonstrates that Stoic-pantheistic predicates do not at all suggest that the Jewish writer’s idea of wisdom was evoked by these philosophical postulates or was adequate to them in its nature. It itself lacks the spirit of a school of philosophy and, of course, cannot communicate it to others. Here we necessarily arrive at genetic similarities and acquire solid ground for their objective evaluation in relation to the question of the dependence of the Apostle of the Gentiles’ Christological contemplations on purely Hellenic speculations.
First, immediate, and most important, it is clear in its inevitability that St. Paul could not borrow what is not present in the source itself, and at this point, the intrusion of Hellenic elements is simply improbable. But since such conditions are required for the validity of the genetic process, it follows that knowledge of this tool in its true scope and qualities would not provide it with its own Christological concepts. This second thesis is, in fact, supported by observations regarding Sophia’s personality. We believe that she was not imagined by the writer and does not constitute a personality for him. This conclusion is justified by the fact that otherwise, the “spirit” and “word” would equally justifiably lay claim to this, for they are individualized in a completely analogous manner. However, a trinity of intermediaries is inadmissible for the very purpose of reconciliation, and their common goal demonstrates that each of them individually is unsuitable for this purpose as an independent agent and must merge with one another, losing their personal claims to the dignity of Divine energy. All predicates that presuppose divine power in its diverse manifestations also tend toward this conclusion. The vividness and plasticity of the imagery pertain specifically to the personal originator in God and do not warrant us in supposing that pseudo-Solomon approached hypostasis142 and, in this sense, served as a prelude to later theological developments in the theoretical treatment of the subject under discussion.143 However, this is not yet an indisputable personality. In such a case, it immediately seems unlikely that the Apostle would have made of it a pre-worldly, typical hypostasis and, through it, transformed the historical Jesus into the eternal Logos, the Son of God. Here, the conclusion would contain much more than the premises, which do not contain the stated result. We do not dispute that—with personal application—the analyzed predicates were also colored with personal nuances and became personal testimonies. For this reason, it is entirely normal that, after such application and in light of it, they were already related to the personal principle, later revealed historically in Christ.144 From this perspective, it is natural and legitimate that St. Paul would have discerned in the wisdom of a non-canonical book a personal divine intercessor with all the privileges of natural divine sonship. This is also true for us, with all due certainty, but we emphasize and defend only that such personal clarity was entirely inaccessible to the Jewish author and is not expressed in his exegesis. Then, too, the apostolic personal exegesis will claim that in it, the past is elucidated from the present, and the personal Redeemer of history draws to himself the feeble rays of His diffused radiance, illuminating them with his own personal individuality. Here, the evangelist himself contributes his own independent understanding and, of course, cannot draw it from the object of his own commentary. The opposite is absolutely improbable, and this is precisely what is required by genetic interpretations. They assume that the personal Old Testament Jewish concept elevated Jesus the Redeemer to the level of beginning less divinity and led to the creation of a second divine hypostasis, which was neither present in Christ nor real, or existed no more than in theoretical theological speculations. In fact, we see the very opposite: in the source being utilized, the personal idea is not prominently advanced and derives its definition from a pre-known and recognized divine personality. Consequently, St. Paul does not borrow, but bestows upon us the fullness of his own insight, which illuminates all the dark conjectures and prophecies of providential propaedeutics. We now see that the concept of Christ’s pre-eternal spiritual-divine personhood is not drawn from a non-canonical document and therefore does not owe its most specific predicates to it, just as none are found in the scholastic philosophical extremes of pantheism or stoicism. In this sense, apostolic Christology, neither by its nature nor by its properties, is conditioned in its origin by the views of pseudo-Solomon, and does not receive from him the Hellenic philosophical influences that would have accompanied the transformation of all original Christian dogma in the Hellenistic spirit. Therefore, interpretations of this kind are doomed in advance to the sad fate of arbitrary interpretations and find no real support. Thus, it is fundamentally predetermined fate of genetic comparisons, which note the original transformations of the supposed Hellenic invasion, is at stake.
Modifications of apostolic Christology, when fertilized by Hellenic philosophical elements, are determined by a critique of the essence of the latter, and from this perspective, they develop logically and are easily discerned. The point of departure will again be metaphysical-ontological dualism. In this dualism, man, by his fleshliness and the sinfulness inherent in it, is separated from divinity and alienated from any natural communion with it. And since this state is rooted in the very nature of each and every one, no one can live and behave in a godlike manner. If otherwise is actually observed and proclaimed, this thereby expresses the recognition of a higher intervention, which must be continuous if the spiritualized moral course is to be continuous and normal. Having assimilated such an influence of the regenerating Christ, the Apostle of the Gentiles was forced to think of the Lord as immanent in all who were blessed. Here, St. Paul allegedly utilizes, through the book of Wisdom, the Stoic-pantheistic concept of an omnipresent and omnipervasive energy.145 At the same time, it is obvious that the latter acts animatingly only through its opposition to material inertia, into which it infuses its share of morally functioning activity, which is why it is strictly pneumatic. Accordingly, Christ will be an entirely spiritual subject and unites with the Holy Spirit to the point of indifference. These are two truths that pertain to Hellenistic renunciation through the medium of pseudo-Solomon. Their originality and Hellenistic physiognomy are clarified by the following details. Genetic interpretations state that “man by nature is simply a rational soul without a spirit, burdened by the burden of a sensual body and therefore incapable of comprehending the divine and performing good, were it not granted from above the animating power of the Holy Spirit. But how could this animating power be accessible to humanity?” Hellenism offered no answer to this question—just as Pharisaism was unable to address another question: how the Jews could attain a righteousness worthy of the Messiah’s Kingdom. And just as the latter question was resolved for the Christian Paul by the propitiatory death of the Messiah Jesus on the cross, so the former was illuminated by the resurrection of the Messiah Jesus. In it, the second Adam was revealed and acted as the “animating spirit,” for which he was created from the beginning (1 Cor. 15:45). Through this, a new life force was revealed to humanity, which frees everyone who receives it in faith from the enslaving power of sin and death nesting in the flesh. The evil, antipneumatic, and ungodly desires that prevailed in carnal man, which hindered the doing of good and the fulfillment of the law, are overcome by a higher vital attraction, which, from the animating spirit of Christ, passes to those who belong to Christ and makes them new people… In this way, to the principle of new religious knowledge in redemption [propitiation], is added the principle of a new moral life for the sons of God and spiritual people in the image of the second Adam, the firstborn of many brothers. This second side of Pauline theology is revered by Christianized Hellenism, just as the first is Christianized Pharisaism.”146 However, it is not yet clear where the Hellenistic participation actually lies, since everything is drawn from the actual resurrection of Christ, or, more precisely, from a unique understanding of it. But here we must take into account that the very difficulty arose on the soil of the Hellenistic contemplation of the spiritual helplessness of natural man, and here the Apostle adopted the Hellenistic premises of the Book of Wisdom (Chapters 8-9 and more particularly in 1 Cor. 2:6-16 from Proverbs 9:13-17).147 In this point, the apostolic doctrine of the spiritual deprivation of natural man and his renewal by the divine energy of the Holy Spirit finds its support in Hellenism.148 This innovation was necessarily accompanied by a characteristic transformation of the prevailing early Christian views. The evangelist sees in his animating divine factor more than simply a miraculous messianic power, sporadically revealed in isolated impulses and wondrous actions. For him, it is an ingrained and inseparable “law of life in Christ,” the unchanging principle of feelings, thought, desire, and behavior. Hellenistic theology, however, preached that divine wisdom, or the Holy Spirit, descends from above into souls and, dwelling within them constantly, makes them friends of God and prophets, rewards them with all knowledge and virtues, and even initiates them into eternal life (cf. Proverbs 7:7:9). “Here lies the root of Paul’s doctrine of the Spirit.” However, the abstract idea refers to the Spirit of the risen Christ, when spiritual animating is linked with faith in the Lord and with the sacramental acts of its witness in Christian union. Through this, in mystical sacramentalism, theosophical ideas emerge as religious realities with concrete content and energetic appeal.149 Then, original modifications are crowned only by the fact that Paul’s teaching on the Church, baptism, and the Eucharist will be dated and illuminated from his Hellenistic pneumatology, taken from the Book of Wisdom.150 This entire transformation, in its origin, is conditioned by the immanent introduction of Christ’s spirituality into the realm of carnal materiality. The animating Christ directly merges with the Spirit,151 analogous to the non-canonical biblical document, along with which the apostolic concept also adopts certain features of materiality.152 It is inevitable that the special individuality of the Spirit is absorbed by the personality of the inspiring Lord153 and disappears through identification with Him to the degree of mathematical equality ὁ κύριοςτά πνεῦμα 154.
In this pneumatic refinement, freely dissolving the personal isolation of the real historical subject through unfettered penetration into all phenomenality, Christ—in the apostolic understanding—gains access to a constant coexistence with all His participants and necessarily manifests Himself in all the functions of their grace-filled existence. In this case, Christ’s influence is already expressed in particular, extraordinary acts, which are only possible in the isolation of two individualities, one of which acts only in proportion to their contact, while the other responds only according to the quantity and degree of its perception. Hence, in the atmosphere of individualistic messianic contemplation of the primal brotherhood, partial manifestations of Christ’s grace-filled manifestations were permitted in instances of unusual intensity. From now on, the Lord, as it were, merges with His companions and regulates all their grace-filled functions as the most important factor in normal Christian behavior. Therefore, the influence of Christ is embodied in the ordinary forms of renewed life and transforms it all according to its own type. St. Paul coincides with pseudo-Solomon, for both derive from the divine Spirit not simply momentary ecstatic acts, but the permanent character of a godlike order. Of course, the Jewish writer emphasizes the intellectual and contemplative side of the idea to the detriment of its application in the realm of the will—this is an important difference. However, in the central proposition, they converge, and this establishes a “direct connection” with the book of Wisdom, with the necessary result that “the religious idealism of Paul’s pneumatology is closely related to the Hellenistic idealism of his time.”155 Given these premises, it is not surprising that the concept of Christ as God’s power and wisdom (1 Cor. 1:24) is closely related to the speculations of a non-canonical text and is commented on from it. 156
Notes:
127. This eliminates the overly confident remark of Ernest Havet (Le Christianisme et ses origins IV, p. 399) about the book of Wisdom, as if “its author distinguishes and contrasts body and soul, matter and spirit.”
128. F. C. Conybeare, Critical Notice on Weinstein in “The Critical Review” XIII, 51 (April, 1901), p. 545: “In the Wisdom of Solomon there is as yet no ‘second God,’ no hypostasis of wisdom apart from God. She is the mind of God as planning and as creating.” Cf. and Dr. N. I. Weinstein, Zur Genesis der Agada II: Die Alexandrinische Agada (Göttingen 1901), p. 13.
129. Prof. M. D. Muretov, The Doctrine of Logos in Philo of Alexandria and John the Theologian, p. 91.
130. D. V. Pospekhov. The Book of Wisdom of Solomon, p. 197.
131. Samuel Davidson, An Introduction to the Old Testament III, p. 400. D. V. Pospekhov, The Book of Wisdom of Solomon, p. 432.
132. J. Fr. Bruch, The Wisdom of the Hebrews, p. 335.
133. So, the book S. N. Trubetskoy, The Doctrine of the Logos in Its History I, p. 89 and in “Problems of Philosophy and Psychology” VIII, 40 (Book V for 1897), p. 827.
134. See also Dr. J. Hamburger in Real-Encyclopädie des Judentums III, 6, p. 45; III, 3, p. 43. Cf. Paul Wendland in The Jewish Encyclopedia I, p. 370.
135. Prof. M. D. Muretov, The Doctrine of the Logos in Philo of Alexandria and John the Theologian, pp. 89–90. 91. 92.
136. We find this, for example, in Prof. M. D. Muretova in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, p. 462 ff.
137. Edm. Pfleiderer, The Philosophy of Heraklitus of Ephesus in the Lichte der Mysterienidee, pp. 293–294.
138. See above on pp. 481, 280, 482, 286, 496, 499, 500, 545, 555, 614, 620. See also Ferd. Christ. Baur, Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes I (Tübingen 1841), S. 58–59, where it is said about wisdom-spirit: “Diese, mit den Emanations-Ideen der alten Welt in engem Zusammenhang stehende, Vorstellung weist uns schon auf ein neues, heterogenes Princip hin, das zur alttestamentlichen Religionslehre hinzukam, auf den Einfluss jener Ideen, aus deren Vermischung mit der Religionslehre des A. T. in Aegypten die bekannte alexandrinische Religions-Philosophie hervorging.”
140. Wed. and James Drummond, Philo Judaeus I, p. 225.
141. Cp. Rud. Cornely, Introductio specialis in libros sacros Veteris Testamenti, p. 235–236.
142. Wed. at Rev. Prof. Georye T. Purves, Art. “Logos” in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by J. Hastings III (Edinburgh 1900), p. 134 a.
143. See also the remarks in Arthur Titius, Dio neutestamentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit II, p. 230, that the teaching of the book of Wisdom paved the way for the formulation of the idea of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit.
144. Therefore, if the Old Testament consciousness considered the “Angel of Jehovah” to be “a form of manifestation of the one God” (cf. pp. 642, 846), then one cannot conclude from this, along with O. Kirn (in Realenciklopädue von Prof. A. Hauck XI3, p. 601:25–26), that this was actually the case.
145. Cf. Prof. W. Bousset (on H. Weinel’s book, Die Wirkungen des Geistes usw.) in “Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen” 1901, X (October), pp. 761–762. Accordingly, it is also asserted that – according to the view of St. Apostle Paul – everything specifically human is absolutely sinful, which is why in Christianity only supernatural gifts are found to be operative among people: cf. Walter R. Cassels, Supernatural Religion III3 (London 1877), pp. 356–357; popular edition (ibid. 1902), p. 776.
146. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, pp. 1474–175.
147. O. Pfleiderer ibid. S. 1611.
148. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 302: “…the Pauline Lehre von der Geistlosigkeit des natürlichen Menschen und seiner Erneuerung durch die göttliche Kraft des heiligen Geistes ihren Anknüpfungspunkt im Hellenismus hat.” The very basic idea of this statement is questionable, since the Apostle Paul clearly distinguishes between the Spirit of man and the Spirit of God (see Emil Sokolowski, Geist und Leben nach den Schriften des Paulus, S. 1: These 2).
149. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, S. 1257–258.
150. H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentl. Theologie II, S. 187, Amn. 4 zu S. 187: “Mit Recht setzt Pfleiderer de Lehre des Pis von Kirche, Taufe und Herrnmahl in Abfolge von seiner hellenistischen, mit dem Buche Sap sich berührenden Lehre vom Geist.”
151. See also book. I, pp. 719 ff., 215.
152. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 2082.
153. O. Pfleiderer ibid., S. 2092.
154. O. Pfleiderer ibid., S. 2102.
155. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 2112.
156. Prof. Eduard Norden, “The Antique Artwork of VI. The Book of Art by V. Chr. bis in the Age of Renaissance II” (Lpzg 1898), pp. 474-1.
Source in Russian: N.N. Glubokovsky, “The Teaching of the Book of Wisdom of Solomon on Divine Wisdom or Spirit in Comparison with the Apostolic Spirit” // Christian Reading. 1904. No. 5. pp. 615-659.
