Flowers of evil: Constructing the wicked in Wisdom of Solomon

The distinction between the good and the wicked is common in wisdom literature. Although the distinction can be viewed as ubiquitous, I would like to problematize it by considering the literary device deployed in constructing the archetypes of the good and the wicked. Specifically, I analyze the depiction of the wicked in chapters 1–6 in Wisdom of Solomon and argue that the construction of the wicked in Wisdom is indispensable in understanding how the righteous obtain wisdom through divine protection and acceptance of divine provision. First, I offer a close reading of the text, mainly Chapters 1–6, and parse out the ways of depicting the wicked in Wisdom of Solomon. In particular, I highlight the “collectivity” of the crowd, as opposed to a “single” righteous individual or group. Social theories of the crowd are critical to my formulation of the characteristics of the wicked. Second, I examine the relationship between the wicked and the righteous, and propose the idea of “a mirror effect” in these antithetical depictions. The mirror effect exhibits didactic values, as it instructs one to pursue righteousness and shun from evil. Third, I focus on the interaction between God, the righteous, and the wicked and suggest that divine intervention in helping the righteous stand firm among the wicked manifests both divine justice and divine mercy.

Along a marvelous way: The significance of Middle Platonism for understanding Wisdom of Solomon’s soteriology

An analysis of personified Sophia’s soteriological role illuminates the interrelationship between eschatology and ontology in the Wisdom of Solomon. Read within the philosophical milieu of early imperial Platonism, Sophia functions similarly to divine intermediaries in the writings of Alcinous, Plutarch of Chaeronea, and Numenius of Apamea in how she leads souls from the earthly to the intellectual realm. In contrast to the temporal orientations in the treatise before and after, Wisdom 6:22–10:18 depicts Sophia’s benefit to humankind as ahistorical and ontological in nature.

Ahistorical interpretation of the Torah narratives in the Wisdom of Solomon

The traditional scholarly title (since the early twentieth century) for the last section of the Wisdom of Solomon, chapters 11–19 (or for some, 10–19) is the “Book of History.” This is a misleading designation because the author of the Wisdom of Solomon chose to present certain events from the exodus and wilderness traditions of ancient Israel not in the context of a continuous historical narrative, but rather as paradigmatic examples of God’s justice and mercy toward both the righteous and the ungodly. The purpose of the second half of the Wisdom of Solomon is pedagogical and apologetic rather than historical. The author’s avoidance of proper names and the consistent division of humanity in moral terms (the righteous vs the ungodly/unrighteous) rather than along ethnic lines (Israel vs Egyptians or Canaanites) should be taken seriously as an effort to universalize the lessons of Israel’s stories. The consistent message of both the antitheses and the excurses in chapters 11–19 is that God manifests both justice and mercy in disciplining human beings (both the righteous and the unrighteous) with suffering. Thus, it would be preferable to call chapters 11–19 either the “Book of Discipline” or the “Book of Divine Justice and Mercy.”

Crafted ambiguity in the Wisdom of Solomon

The Wisdom of Solomon is a text intensely concerned with epistemological questions. What is true knowledge? Where does it come from? What’s its purpose? How does one attain it? In each of its parts, Wisdom can be seen directly and clearly tackling these types of problems. The Wisdom of Solomon is also a text deeply and frustratingly ambiguous. Is this some kind of embarrassing irony, a text so intent on delving into the nature and purpose of understanding ultimately unable to be understood? This study looks at how the ambiguity, surely present at several places throughout the book, is, in fact, rhetorically crafted and designed to guide to the reader to greater clarity and understanding. There is, then, no conflict between the stated purpose of the text, to lead the reader to wisdom and knowledge, and the means by which the author does so. The ambiguity and the epistemology of the Wisdom of Solomon are, in the end, inseparable.

“Mystery” in the Wisdom of Solomon and 4QInstruction

Similar ideas and tropes found in the Wisdom of Solomon and 4QInstruction (4Q415–418, 423; 1Q26) have considerable significance for the study of early Jewish sapiential literature. One feature shared by both compositions is teaching about “mysteries.” Previous studies on these two wisdom writings conclude that there are distinct differences in what these mysteries are and how they function in the thought world of each composition. This article argues for an alternative understanding of mysteries in 4QInstruction to those presented in previous comparative studies. In light of this reassessment of mysteries, the Wisdom of Solomon and 4QInstruction are seen to participate within an intellectual space much closer to one another than previously perceived.

The role of memory in the Wisdom of Solomon

The theme of memory in the Wisdom of Solomon shows affinities with the conceptualization of memory in the ancient world generally. The book is written such that the more one has internalized the texts and traditions of the Jewish community, the more meaningful and persuasive its argument will be. To have shaped oneself according to the authoritative Scriptural texts is to perceive the true reality of how history is unfolding. Even if there is danger or suffering in the present, one can make sense of this in terms of a coming eschatological judgment because one will contextualize the present in the patterns of the remembered past. Thus, virtues like fortitude, self-control, justice, and prudence can be developed because God and Wisdom, from whom these come, have assured their eventual reward. In addition, the same pedagogical role of memory that Pseudo-Solomon describes through the plague sequence is evident in the author’s approach to his audience as well. They are expected to learn from the remembered, sacred past as well as from their own experiences. And when shaped by these memories, they will have the prudence to remain faithful because they perceive the intimate connection between virtue and immortality that has been evident throughout history. They will understand that wisdom provides eternal remembrance, both among people but even more importantly, in the mind of God.

Philosophical cosmology and religious polemic: The “worship of creation” in the writings of Philo of Alexandria and the Wisdom of Solomon

This article treats Hellenistic Jewish literature that ridicules the alleged worship of the elements, the heavens, the heavenly bodies, or other “parts” of the cosmos, especially as developed in the writings of Philo of Alexandria and Ps-Solomon. It is argued that such claims constitute a distinctive sub-type of religious polemic that draws on and adapts from Platonic and Stoic traditions of cosmology. Such polemics are most clearly developed in Philo’s treatises and in chapter 13 of the Wisdom of Solomon, but they also appear in more abbreviated form in the fragments of Philo of Byblos and Aristobulus. I suggest that these traditions of invective may bear on the interpretation of Rom 1:19–23, but only in an indirect way.

The quest of the king in the Wisdom of Solomon

Historians largely agree that Hellenistic kingship was founded, not primarily on heredity, but on military achievement (MacDonald, 2015). The right to rule was thus militarily meritocratic, but philosophically unsteady, so kings felt the need to propagandize by commissioning writings peri basileias. Diogenes Laertius gives evidence that this type of kingship literature was widely produced in this era, though only fragments of these texts survive. The tracts attributed to Ecphantus, Diotogenes, and Sthenidas, along with the Letter of Aristeas, reveal that Hellenistic kingship was supported by a mythos that viewed obtaining kingship as a kind of moral achievement. The king’s virtues are emphasized as godlike and worthy of imitation by his subjects, as he embodies the law in his person. The Wisdom of Solomon reworks this kingship tradition by “democratizing” kingship (Newman, 2004) to all to call his readers to imitate Solomon’s choice of wisdom over folly. Solomon’s search for and embrace of wisdom (7:7; 8:2) takes the place of militaristic emphases and establishes a universalizable pattern for the moral quest of the individual. Wisdom domesticates a Hellenistic pattern of seeking wisdom and thus achieving kingly rule, which eventually allows one to be a benefactor of others. Wisdom is beneficent (7:23) and, rather than becoming a god, the wise Solomon benefits others with his wise and just rule (Wis 8:10–15; 9:12). Even the wise Israelites become benefactors to others (19:14). Thus, the quest of the king for wisdom follows a familiar outline of the journey of a king from obscurity, to conquest, to rule, to beneficence.