Catholic & Orthodox only: - Wisdom (gospel, tradition, translation, church)

[*Paul*]

Is this passage from the apocryphal (or deutro canonical if you're fussy) considered to be prophecy? What year do you date it at?

2:12. Let us, therefore, lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life.
Circumveniamus ergo iustum quoniam inutilis est nobis et contrarius est operibus nostris et inproperat nobis peccata legis et diffamat in nos peccata disciplinae nostrae

2:13. He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God.
Promittit scientiam Dei se habere et filium Dei se nominat
2:14. He is become a censurer of our thoughts.
Factus est nobis in traductionem cogitationum nostrarum
2:15. He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different.
Gravis est nobis etiam ad videndum quoniam dissimilis est aliis vita illius et inmutatae sunt viae eius
2:16. We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father.
Tamquam nugaces aestimati sumus ab illo et abstinet se a viis nostris tamquam ab inmunditiis et praefert novissima iustorum et gloriatur patrem Deum se habere
2:17. Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be.
Videamus ergo si sermones illius veri sunt et temptemus quae ventura sunt illi et sciemus quae erunt novissima illius
2:18. For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.
Si enim est verus filius Dei suscipiet illum et liberabit eum de manu contrariorum
2:19. Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness, and try his patience.
Contumelia et tormento interrogemus eum ut sciamus reverentiam illius et probemus patientiam ipsius
2:20. Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.
Morte turpissima condemnemus illum erit enim ei respectus ex sermonibus illius
2:21. These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them.
Haec cogitaverunt et erraverunt excaecavit enim illos malitia eorum
2:22. And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls.
Et nescierunt sacramenta Dei neque mercedem speraverunt iustitiae nec iudicaverunt honorem animarum sanctarum
2:23. For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him.
Quoniam Deus creavit hominem inexterminabilem et ad imaginem suae similitudinis fecit illum 2:24. But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world:
Invidia autem diaboli mors introivit in orbem terrarum

[*Paul*]

Any catholic or orthodox person will do.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by *Paul*

Any catholic or orthodox person will do.

What are you quoting from and what's with the Latin? None of the deuterocanon was written in Latin, so I'm struggling to see why you'd want to quote it. I certainly don't read the language at all.

If you let me know the book that you are quoting from and give me a little time to get to a decent Orthodox translation of it (which may take some time as there isn't one in English so I'll need to use Romanian - hopefully this will change in 2008) then I can first see if what you're quoting seems to be in our canon (it's not identical to Rome's) and then give you my best answer as to when it was written and what it means. I'll give you the answer of the Church if possible.

James

[James the Persian]

OK, seeing as I haven't heard back from you on this, I went and searched and have found that it's from Chapter 2 of the Wisdom of Solomon. Of course, that makes my confusion about the Latin all the greater as the text in question is written in Greek.

It's normally considered pseudepigraphical (i.e. Solomon wasn't the author) and to date from the 2nd century BC, or thereabouts. I'm not sure whether it is considered prophecy, but there appears to be some allusions to it made in Matthew, which would seem to support the idea that it was considered prophetic by the early Church. I'd have to do some digging if you want anything more than that, though.

James

[*Paul*]

Originally Posted by James the Persian

OK, seeing as I haven't heard back from you on this, I went and searched and have found that it's from Chapter 2 of the Wisdom of Solomon. Of course, that makes my confusion about the Latin all the greater as the text in question is written in Greek.

It's normally considered pseudepigraphical (i.e. Solomon wasn't the author) and to date from the 2nd century BC, or thereabouts. I'm not sure whether it is considered prophecy, but there appears to be some allusions to it made in Matthew, which would seem to support the idea that it was considered prophetic by the early Church. I'd have to do some digging if you want anything more than that, though.

James

Ahhh, sorry James, I lost all hope on this one being answered, it was off a Catholic site which would explain the latin, I am currently reading the apocrypha when I came across this passage. I was wondering if it was generally considered as a prophetic passage by those who regard it as scripture. I suppose the fact that you are unsure would probably say that it isn't really.

Sorry I missed your response, feel free to PM me if this happens again, i have a brain like a seive at times.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by *Paul*

Ahhh, sorry James, I lost all hope on this one being answered, it was off a Catholic site which would explain the latin, I am currently reading the apocrypha when I came across this passage. I was wondering if it was generally considered as a prophetic passage by those who regard it as scripture. I suppose the fact that you are unsure would probably say that it isn't really.

Not necessarily. The deuterocanon doesn't have the same standing in the Church and so you don't hear and/or discuss it so often. It may well be that this is accepted prophecy within the Church and that I simply haven't come across it. The fact that Matthew appears to allude to it suggests that it is but, as I said, I'd have to do a little more digging. If you'd asked about non-deuterocanonical texts, I would be able to answer more easily (and quickly). Let me see what I can find out (I'm interested now, too).

Sorry I missed your response, feel free to PM me if this happens again, i have a brain like a seive at times.

Same here. Don't worry about it.

James

[*Paul*]

It definatley is about how the recipients of the Son of God's message would treat Him and respond to Him. Is the date contested at all?

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by *Paul*

It definatley is about how the recipients of the Son of God's message would treat Him and respond to Him. Is the date contested at all?

Not that I know of, no. I mean, some people would claim that it was actually written by Solomon (the sort of ultra-Traditionalists that we have just like every other church) but I've never seen a scholarly opinion that puts it anywhere other than between the 2nd to 1st century BC. It is certainly in the text of the Septuagint used by the early Church, which sort of clinches it as that was complete by the 1st century BC itself.

As for what I can dig up on the text, not much. It was considered valuable by a number of Fathers (St. John of Damascus mentions it as such directly) but I have seen no particular comment on the section you have quoted. I suspect that, as it's a rather 'obvious' section of a rather minor book, that it's probably not been commented on much. I mean, seen in the light of the Gospel (and that's how we view all of the Old Testament), it doesn't sem as though there is much to question with regards its interpretation, does it?

James

[*Paul*]

Originally Posted by James the Persian

I mean, seen in the light of the Gospel (and that's how we view all of the Old Testament), it doesn't sem as though there is much to question with regards its interpretation, does it?
James

No i think the interpretation is unchallengable, but from an apologetical point of view, would you consider this as evidence of inspiration? As a protestant, aside form the special personal truths revealed in scripture we view prophecy as the evidence and proof of Divine inspiration.
I know this book is not in question as to being part of the canon in your tradition, but if I were orthodox and someone said to me, "the apocrypha is not part of the word of God" I would ask them what they thought of such passages.

Anyway I am going to continue my study, very interesting. I don't know what to make of bel and the dragon though.

[*Paul*]

Do you think this is true? How would you interpret this passage? Does your church teach in accordance with the literal interpretation of this passage or is it redefined somehow?

10 But the ungodly shall be punished according to their own imaginations, which have neglected the righteous, and forsaken the Lord.
11 For whoso despiseth wisdom and nurture, he is miserable, and their hope is vain, their labours unfruitful, and their works unprofitable:
12 Their wives are foolish, and their children wicked:
13 Their offspring is cursed. Wherefore blessed is the barren that is undefiled, which hath not known the sinful bed: she shall have fruit in the visitation of souls.
16 As for the children of adulterers, they shall not come to their perfection, and the seed of an unrighteous bed shall be rooted out.
17 For though they live long, yet shall they be nothing regarded: and their last age shall be without honour.
18 Or, if they die quickly, they have no hope, neither comfort in the day of trial.
19 For horrible is the end of the unrighteous generation.