ἔκτισεν γὰρ εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα καὶ σωτήριοι αἱ γενέσεις τοῦ κόσμου καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐταῖς φάρμακον ὀλέθρου οὔτε ᾅδου βασίλειον ἐπὶ γῆς (Wisdom of Solomon 1:14)
"For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth:" (Brenton LXX)
"For he created all things that they might exist" (NETS)
"creavit enim ut essent omnia et sanabiles nationes orbis terrarum et non est in illis medicamentum exterminii nec inferorum regnum in terra"" (Vulgate)
Wisdom of Solomon was probably written by 200 BCE.
That's a bold proposition on the dating.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0129.xml
I am not/would not be dogmatic about dating Wisdom of Sol. Scholars give a range of 220 BCE-1st cent. CE. My date is just an approximation.
ReplyDelete"The book was probably composed about 120-100 BC" (ISBE).
"David A. deSilva writes: 'There is wider debate concerning the date of Wisdom, which has been placed anywhere between 220 B.C.E. and 100 C.E. The terminus a quo is set by the author's use of the Greek translation of Isaiah, Job, and Proverbs, the first of which was probably available by 200 B.C.E. (Reider 1957: 14; Holmes 1913: 520). The terminus ad quem is set by the evident use of the work by several New Testament authors (Holmes 1913: 521; Reider 1957: 14). A date within the early period of Roman domination of Egypt, especially the early Roman Principate (or Empire), seems most likely.'"
See http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/wisdom.html
There are proposed compositional stages for the book too.
Vermes frames it in his last work to 50bce. Presumably at its final stage.
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3UFAJ4zmxF8C&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=wisdom+of+solomon+50bce&source=bl&ots=ZTuMFGMCWe&sig=9rQ1u1idmR4q2GqSkmsIR1xU1-k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij_LeKx53VAhWFuhoKHbPrCDkQ6AEIYTAJ#v=onepage&q=wisdom%20of%20solomon%2050bce&f=false
ReplyDeleteI believe the general consensus is mid-first century CE or later, but some do place the document, at its earliest, at circa 220 BCE or thereabouts. I would not seriously dispute Vermes' dating, but much of the dating exercise is guesswork.
ReplyDeleteSee the document here: http://peterennsonline.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/0310227283_enns.pdf
Notice especially endnote 3.
In wisdom what are "the all these" that are being referred too as created? Does it not say just prior that he did not make death?
ReplyDeleteWisdom 1:7
ReplyDeleteὅτι πνεῦμα κυρίου πεπλήρωκεν τὴν οἰκουμένην καὶ τὸ συνέχον τὰ πάντα γνῶσιν ἔχει φωνῆς
But later in 9:1
θεὲ πατέρων καὶ κύριε τοῦ ἐλέους ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα ἐν λόγῳ σου
But God did create death unless no animal was meant to die. If animals are meant to die then the all things has to be limited as it does not appear to be defined me categorised.
2 Mac 7:28
ReplyDeleteἀξιῶ σε τέκνον ἀναβλέψαντα εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα ἰδόντα γνῶναι ὅτι οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ θεός καὶ τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος οὕτω γίνεται
Man made from a nothing that is clearly something.
It's been a while back, but we have previously discussed the meaning for ta panta as shorthand for the universe (cosmos). See https://www.academia.edu/15912414/God_the_Creator_in_the_Wisdom_of_Solomon_A_Theological_Commentary
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/colossians-1-17-hold-together-a-co-opted-term/549/article-p81.html
See the first link for an explanation on how the writer of Wisdom believes God did not create death. Ta panta can refer to the cosmos as a whole--understood compositionally, not distributively. 2 Pet 2:12 and the Jewish scriptures might indicate that animals were not meant to live forever. Death in this context might have a very limited purview.
Concerning 2 Macc. 7:28:
George Haydock: "Nothing, not out of pre-existent and eternal matter. (St. Augustine, Nat. boni xxvi.) (Romans iv. 17.) --- So God can reduce all to nothing, chap. viii. 18."
See https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hcc/2-maccabees-7.html
Compare Heb 11:3.
It is a logical mistake to treat nothing as something (a reified entity). I don't believe the writer of 2 Maccabees engages in that kind of thinking.
https://septuagintstudies.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/more-on-god-as-creator-from-ii-maccabees/
See also http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_006.htm
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23969880?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
TA PANTA as short hand for the universe may be the case in some places - but all? We did not cover this book at the time. If memory serves, TA PANTA was qualified in the other instances you referenced. Where are the evident links between wisdom & 2 mac to Aristotle or that category of thinking?
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V77eBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=2+macc+50bce&source=bl&ots=TgxXDe0fAM&sig=_2QIPW4KneJyq2-szsk0ih7tojw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJwp7lvqHVAhVqD8AKHYcXCAsQ6AEIQTAD#v=onepage&q=50%20bce&f=false
ReplyDelete"2 Maccabees presents a positive view of the Romans, which suggests it was written before 63 BC (van Henten,The Maccabean Martyrs, 50 – 56; Goldstein,
ReplyDelete2 Maccabees, 71). Zeitlin (2 Maccabees, 27) argues that the statement at 2 Macc 15:37 that “the city has been in the possession of the Hebrews from that time” demonstrates that Jerusalem was the capital of Judaea when the book was written. He points to either the time of Herod (38 – 34 BC) or Agrippa I (AD 41 – 44), and he favors the time of Agrippa"
https://www.academia.edu/7696169/_Maccabees_Books_of_the_
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fmskY3gb5g8C&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=ta+panta+wisdom&source=bl&ots=6dJ5vtjjn3&sig=gTqzmk8d_2Devk1AZYH6H-EnVWU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIjeLW8KHVAhVIL8AKHR85DG04ChDoAQgnMAA#v=onepage&q=ta%20panta%20wisdom&f=false
ReplyDeletePg 115
In this case, I am saying that ta panta could refer to the universe as a whole in Wisdom 1:7, 14; 9;1. Did you read the bow.org link? He gave evidence for this claim.
ReplyDeleteI would not argue for a direct line between Aristotle and the deuterocanonicals. Why should we? The use of similar words does not necessarily imply literary or conceptual dependence.
What about the Ezekiel 7:14 - ta sympanta?
ReplyDeleteThe context of Ezek 7:14 makes it clear that the prophet does not have the universe in mind. Conversely, the Wisdom texts deal with creation--bringing things into being. If the universe were not meant, something in the context would likely delimit the meaning of ta panta. For the common use of ta panta in this way, see https://books.google.com/books?id=5zbD-qWE_AsC&pg=PA70&dq=ta+panta+stoics&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAibLPraLVAhVINiYKHd6bBe0Q6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=ta%20panta%20stoics&f=false
ReplyDeleteGot a copy of NEB apocrypha a few weeks ago and it translates. - he created all things that they might have being. But from this translation it is not clear what the all things actually are. For v7 it says- for the spirit of the lord fills the whole earth, and that which holds all things together is well aware of what men say.
ReplyDeletebow.org should be bsw.org, the link above. That article discusses Wisdom 1:7, Col. 1:17 and other related texts.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/colossians-1-17-hold-together-a-co-opted-term/549/article-p81.html
See also https://books.google.com/books?id=zO-aBUydrhYC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=ta+panta+universe+stoicism&source=bl&ots=tSyBz3cD9W&sig=AjjJg_tJx1lXirsMghGNP7Mh1jk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMgv_k8KLVAhVMziYKHUkqD-AQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=ta%20panta%20universe%20stoicism&f=false
http://www.bensira.org/navigator.php?Manuscript=B&PageNum=25
ReplyDeleteSee 43:26
In the bsw article, Collins discussed and quoted Greek and Hebrew Ben Sira 43:26. He also exegetes the passage as he explains why LXX differs from the Hebrew exemplar.
ReplyDeleteHis translation of the Hebrew differs from my lnk and it is difficult to see how one can replace the Hebrew with the Greek. But if it is the case should the Greek be understood in light of the Hebrew?
ReplyDeleteYour link's translation:
ReplyDelete"His angel succeeds for his sake
[[ ]] and his will is accomplished by his words."
Collins' article translation: "Because of him the messenger succeeds and by his words he works his will."
Angel and messenger are synonyms; Collins does not have "his angel," so that part is different but not major IMO. Because of him/for his sake are alike; and the "will" part is almost identical in thought.
Collins' exact words: "There is no reason to doubt that this Hebrew is close to what the Greek translator was trying to represent"
See p. 82.
You might enjoy http://cuislandora.wrlc.org/islandora/object/etd%3A24/datastream/PDF/view
ReplyDeleteA few points of interest here:-
ReplyDeletehttp://www.judaismonazareno.org/news/proof-the-hebrew-origin-of-the-wisdom-of-solomon/
Wisdom 10:1,2 is a problematic section:-
ReplyDeletehttps://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Wisdom-of-Solomon-Chapter-10/
Note that the Geneva & KJV seem very different at this point.
ReplyDeleteThis is also interesting:-
http://www.handsonapologetics.com/Geneva_Bible.htm
SEE:-
ReplyDeletehttps://archive.org/stream/TheGenevaBible1560/geneva_bible1560#page/n843/mode/2up
https://www.bible.com/en-GB/bible/303/WIS.10.cevdcus06
IMO Hebrew VS Greek.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Wisedome_16_1611/
ReplyDeleteTwo more interesting items have come to light:- Sirach 24:8 & Wisdom 10:2.
ReplyDeleteSirach 24:8 and Wisdom 10:2 address 2 different subjects (agents). The latter verse reminds me of Gen 1:28; Ps 8:1ff.
ReplyDeleteThe differences in KJV and Geneva also can probably be explained by the advancement of Protestantism from 1517 onward since the Reformers began to distance themselves from Catholicism and the deuterocanonicals (Apocrypha). However, Jerome had long ago favored the "Hebrew verity" over the deuterocanonicals. While he found things beneficial in them, I don't believe he took Wisdom, Judith (etc) to be truly canonical.