Scriptural Mormonism: Notes on Wisdom of Solomon 14:8-21 and Iconodulia

⁸ But the handiwork: accursed be it and the one who made it, because he made it and called what is perishable a god. ⁹ For hateful to God in equal measure is the ungodly and his ungodliness. ¹⁰ For what is done will be punished together with the one who did it. ¹¹ Because of this, there will be an examination of the nations even among the idols, because they became an abomination among God’s creations, and causes of sin for the souls of humans, and a trap for the feet of fools. The Origins of Idolatry ¹² For the idea of idols was the beginning of prostitution, and the invention of them was the corruption of life; ¹³ for they did not exist from the beginning, and they will not exist ⌊forever⌋. ¹⁴ For through human vanity they entered into the world, and because of this their shortened end has been planned. ¹⁵ For a father, distressed by untimely grief, making an image of the child so quickly taken away, at that time honored the dead person as a god and handed on the mysteries and worship to his dependents. ¹⁶ Then the ungodly practice, strengthened over time, was guarded as a law, and the carved images were worshiped by the command of tyrants; ¹⁷ who, because people could not honor them by sight because they lived far away, and they imagined their appearance from a distance, they made a visible image of the honored king, so that through zeal they might flatter the absent king as if present. ¹⁸ But the ambition of the artisan encouraged even the ignorant into increasing the intensity of the worship. ¹⁹ For he, possibly wanting to please the ruler, with skill forced the likeness toward what is beautiful; ²⁰ and the crowd, being attracted by the grace of the work, now considered what shortly before was honored as a human to be an object of worship. ²¹ And this became an ambush for life, because humans, enslaved to misfortune or tyranny, assigned the unshareable name to stone and wood. (Wisdom of Solomon 18:8-21 | The Lexham English Septuagint)

The following is from the Greek text of Wisdom 18:8-21 as found in Göttingen:

⁸ τὸ χειροποίητον δέ, ἐπικατάρατον αὐτὸ καὶ ὁ ποιήσας αὐτό,

ὅτι ὁ μὲν ἠργάζετο, τὸ δὲ φθαρτὸν θεὸς ὠνομάσθη.

⁹ ἐν ἴσῳ γὰρ μισητὰ θεῷ καὶ ὁ ἀσεβῶν καὶ ἡ ἀσέβεια αὐτοῦ·

¹⁰ καὶ γὰρ τὸ πραχθὲν σὺν τῷ δράσαντι κολασθήσεται.

¹¹ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐν εἰδώλοις ἐθνῶν ἐπισκοπὴ ἔσται,

ὅτι ἐν κτίσματι θεοῦ εἰς βδέλυγμα ἐγενήθησαν

καὶ εἰς σκάνδαλα ψυχαῖς ἀνθρώπων

καὶ εἰς παγίδα ποσὶν ἀφρόνων.

¹² Ἀρχὴ γὰρ πορνείας ἐπίνοια εἰδώλων,

εὕρεσις δὲ αὐτῶν φθορὰ ζωῆς.

¹³ οὔτε γὰρ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς οὔτε εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἔσται·

¹⁴ κενοδοξίᾳ γὰρ ἀνθρώπων εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον,

καὶ διὰ τοῦτο σύντομον αὐτῶν τὸ τέλος ἐπενοήθη.

¹⁵ ἀώρῳ γὰρ πένθει τρυχόμενος πατὴρ

τοῦ ταχέως ἀφαιρεθέντος τέκνου εἰκόνα ποιήσας

τόν ποτε νεκρὸν ἄνθρωπον νῦν ὡς θεὸν ἐτίμησεν

καὶ παρέδωκεν τοῖς ὑποχειρίοις μυστήρια καὶ τελετάς·

¹⁶ εἶτα ἐν χρόνῳ κρατυνθὲν τὸ ἀσεβὲς ἔθος ὡς νόμος ἐφυλάχθη.

καὶ τυράννων ἐπιταγαῖς ἐθρησκεύετο τὰ γλυπτά,

¹⁷ οὓς ἐν ὄψει μὴ δυνάμενοι τιμᾶν ἄνθρωποι διὰ τὸ μακρὰν οἰκεῖν

τὴν πόρρωθεν ὄψιν ἀνατυπωσάμενοι

ἐμφανῆ εἰκόνα τοῦ τιμωμένου βασιλέως ἐποίησαν,

ἵνα τὸν ἀπόντα ὡς παρόντα κολακεύωσιν διὰ τῆς σπουδῆς.

¹⁸ εἰς ἐπίτασιν δὲ θρησκείας καὶ τοὺς ἀγνοοῦντας

ἡ τοῦ τεχνίτου προετρέψατο φιλοτιμία·

¹⁹ ὁ μὲν γὰρ τάχα κρατοῦντι βουλόμενος ἀρέσαι

ἐξεβιάσατο τῇ τέχνῃ τὴν ὁμοιότητα ἐπὶ τὸ κάλλιον·

²⁰ τὸ δὲ πλῆθος ἐφελκόμενον διὰ τὸ εὔχαρι τῆς ἐργασίας

τὸν πρὸ ὀλίγου τιμηθέντα ἄνθρωπον νῦν σέβασμα ἐλογίσαντο.

²¹ καὶ τοῦτο ἐγένετο τῷ βίῳ εἰς ἔνεδρον,

ὅτι ἢ συμφορᾷ ἢ τυραννίδι δουλεύσαντες ἄνθρωποι

τὸ ἀκοινώνητον ὄνομα λίθοις καὶ ξύλοις περιέθεσαν. (Sapientia Salomonis, ed. Joseph Ziegler [vol. XII, 1; Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980], Logos ed.)

Here are the textual variants among LXX manuscripts and other sources at noted in the same work:

8 init.—αὐτό 1°] maledictum autem lignum quod fit per manum hominum Ambr. V 164 | χειροπ. δέ] χειροπ. γαρ 253; tr. S V L 157 543 766 Mal. | αὐτό 1°] pr. και V 637 La (non ^ΑΣ) Syh; + δε 766; > 46 Dam. p. 1277 | om. αὐτό 2°—τὸ δέ 261-545 | ὅτι] ὅ 46; και S* | ειργασατο 637 b 443 766 Dam.; ηργαζενητο S* | φθαρτόν] + ὄν a 46 (tr. post θεός) 311 766 La (cum esset fragile) | θεὸς ὠν.] θεον ωνομασεν Dam.

9 ἴσῳ] οσω 542; ισοτητι 485 | γάρ] δε 755 La Sa^Th; pr. μεν 46; > 766 Arm Dam. p. 1277 = Compl. | μισητά] μισειται 547 | θεῷ] pr. τω Anton. p. 777; > 766 Dam. p. 1156 | om. αὐτοῦ Dam. p. 1156

10 καὶ γὰρ τό] το γαρ 543 | πραχθέν] δρασθεν 46 | δράσαντι] δρασσοντι 637; πραξαντι 543 | κολασθήσεται] εξολοθρευθησεται Dam. p. 1156. 1277 (-σονται) Anton. p. 777

12 Ἀρχὴ γὰρ πορνείας] πρωτη πορνεια Didym. p. 865 Epiph. I 7. 123. 178; πρωτη πλανη Epiph. I 187; om. γάρ 261-545 Sa^L Sy^ap | ευρεσεις B A | αὐτῶν] -τω S* 534; ανθρωπων 613: cf. 13:13

13 οὔτε 1°] ου 547 Sy Aeth | τὸν αἰῶνα] αιωνας 46 | ἔσται] μενει 157 Sy^te

14 γάρ] δε S^c V 637 766 La^LX (autem) Syh Sa^Th; > Aeth Arm | εἰσῆλθεν] ηλθεν 542 Ath. I 24; pr. θανατος S* A 46 443-542 543 547 755 Cant.^com: ex 2:24; pr. haec (hoc^pl) La^V | τὸν κόσμον Eus.praep. = 2:24, 7:6] om. τόν B | σύντ. αὐτῶν] συν αυτω 46; tr. 543 | αὐτῶν/τὸ τέλος] tr. O l-336 a c 766 verss.^p; om. τό B-S 253 766 Ath.

16 εἶτα] ειτ A 248-l alii; ειτε 543 545: cf. 22a | om. ἐν V 637 543 766 Max. p. 988 | κρατυνθέν] -τηθεν 106-261-545 (-τιθεν) 68 534′ 543 (-τιθεν) Cant.^lem Ath.^ap Dam. p. 332; κρατυθεν 443 | ἔθος] εθνος S* 411 705; το εθνος 755 (tr. ante τὸ ἀσεβές); + hic error La | νομον S* (corr.¹^c) | ἐφυλάχθη] διεφυλ. Max.: cf. 10:5; ωνομασθη (vel ον.) l-336 a | τυραννοις 547 | εθρησκευοντο l-336 a-534 | om. τά Ath.^ap

17 οὕς] ος 106; + γαρ e; pr. quia Sy; pr. et La^V verss.^p | ἐν ὄψει/μὴ δυν.] tr. 339* Sy | μὴ] αν 766; pr. δη 46; > 339 | ἄνθρωποι] pr. οι 755 766 Cant.: cf. 9:18; + ἤ 766 | ἀνατυπωσάμενοι] τυπωσ. b; pr. τυπω O-V 637; pr. τυπω αναπλασαμενοι και 766 Arm | τιμωμένου] τετιμημενου 637 46 157 755 Ath. I 24 | τὸν ἀπόντα/ὡς παρόντα Ath.: cf. 11:11] tr. S O-V 637-l-336 a-534′ 46 157 755 766 Ra. | κολακευσωσι(ν) A O-V L′ b 157 311 339-542 359 534′ 547 606 Cant.; θεραπευσωσι 766 | τῆς σπουδῆς Ath.] om. τῆς A l-336 a b c 157 359 Cant.

18 επιστασιν 46 755 | ἀγνοοῦντας] + μετα τουτο O 637 766 La^SX (postea) Sa Arm | om. τοῦ 485 | προετρεψαντο 68; προετρεπετο 157; προεγραψατο 106

20 πλῆθος] + hominum La^V | ἐφελκόμενον] -νος 46 766; εξελκομενον V 705^c; εξερχομενον l; επερχομενον a 336 Sy (vid.) | εὔχαρι] -ριν V 706; -ρες A C 547; -ριστην 534; -ριστον Cant.; ευμορφον Ath. I 24^ap | ἐργασίας] ευεργεσιας a: cf. 13:12; + et varios colores La^X | πρὸ ὀλ.] προς ολ. 766; προ ολιγον 534 | ἄνθρωπον] pr. tamquam La | om. νῦν 766 Sy | σέβασμα] -μιον 261; pr. εις b 359 Cant.; pr. ως 547; ως θεον 157 La^pc Aeth; deum La^V Sa; εις θεους Ath.^ap: cf. 15c | ἐλογίσαντο] -σατο 106 336 Aeth Ath.^ap: cf. 15:12, 15; ελογισθησαν 755: cf. 2:21; ενομισαν 157^c (-μησαν*). cf. 13:2

21 ἐγένετο] εγεγονει Ath. I 24 | τῷ βίῳ] pr. εν Sa Cant.^com | εἰς] ως Ath.^ap | ἔνεδρον] -δρα S*; -δραν Cant.: cf. Thack. § 10₂₆; σκανδαλον 766; + et in scandalum Arm | om. ἤ 1° 755 = Ald. | συμφορᾷ] -ραν 261-545*; -ραις Cant.^com | ἤ 2°] οι 46 | δουλευοντες a La (deservientes) | ακοινωτον 543 | ὄνομα] ομμα l | λίθοις … ξύλοις] tr. Arab Cant.^lem | περιεθηκαν S^c C 248-l alii; περιεθησαν 637 = Ald (Sapientia Salomonis, ed.Joseph Ziegler [vol. XII, 1; Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980], 142–144)

We have the following comments concerning vv. 8-11 in the commentary on the Wisdom of Solomon in the Anchor Yale Bible series:

8. made by hand. In the LXX, cheiropoiēta renders the Hebrew ʾelîlîm.

accursed. Cf. Deut 27:15.

11. the idols of the nations. Cf. Exod 12:12; Jer 10:15; 46:25.

abomination … stumbling. Cf. Josh 23:13: esontai hymin eis pagidas kai eis skandala; Judg 2:3; 8:27, LXX; Ps 105:36, LXX.

part of God’s creation. Cf. M. A.Z. 4.7: “[Some Romans] asked the elders in Rome, ‘If God have no desire for idolatry, why does he not abolish it?’ They replied to them, ‘If they worshipped a thing for which the world has no need, he would abolish it; but, behold they worship the sun, and the moon, and the stars and the planets, shall he then destroy his world because of fools?’ They said to them, ‘If so, let him put an end to that which the world does not need and leave what the world does need.’ [The elders] answered them, ‘We should on our part only strengthen the contention of those that worship them since they would say, “Know that these are [true] deities, for, lo, they have not been destroyed.” ’ ”(David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [Anchor Yale Bible 43; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 267–68)

On vv. 12-25 of the same commentary, we read:

14:12–31. To bolster his attack on idolatry, the author argues that it did not exist from the beginning but arose in the course of time through human error. Two different explanations are adduced for its origins. The first, based to some extent on a widespread religious phenomenon of the Greco-Roman world, refers to a father, who, stricken with grief for the untimely death of his child, sets up an image of it to be accorded divine honors. The second refers to the statues of rulers whose beauty has been enhanced by skillful artists intent on flattery, and subsequently become objects of divine worship by the masses. Similar explanations for the rise of idolatry were later given by Minucious Felix (fl. 200–240 ce) in his dialogue Octavius (20.5), and by Lactantius (ca. 240–320 ce), in his Divine Institutions 2.2.3). See Geffcken:xxii, n.2. Although they are somewhat reminiscent of Euhemerus’ theory of the origin of the gods [expounded in his Hiera Anagraphē or Sacred Record, ca. 300 bce], which held that Uranus, Cronus, and Zeus had been great kings in their day who were later worshiped as gods by their grateful subjects, they do not derive directly from it, but probably from a later “Euhemeristic” source (see Note on v. 15 below), for the author of Wisd is more narrowly interested in explaining the origins of idolatry, whereas Euhemerus was concerned with the larger question regarding the origins of the gods of Greek mythology. A more direct use of Euhemerus’ theory by Jewish writers, on the other hand, may be found in the so-called Letter of Aristeas and in the Sibylline Oracles. In his attack on idolatry (134–137), Ps-Aristeas first ridicules the senselessness of the stone and wooden images, and then, in direct allusion to Euhemerus’ view, argues that it is foolish to deify men because of some invention they had contrived, since “such persons only took things already created and put them together and showed that they possessed further usefulness, but they did not themselves create the objects.” (Stambaugh has suggested that it was Aristeas of Argos, an adviser at the court of Ptolemy II, who served as the prototype of Ps-Aristeas, for we are told by Clement of Alexandria [Strom. 1.21.106] that according to Aristeas, Sarapis was a deified form of an Argive king named Apis. “The climate was congenial to Euhemerism in Egypt where the line between divinity and royal humanity had always been vague, and where Osiris was widely viewed as a mortal king who had been deified [Plutarch Is. et Os. 359D–360B; Diodorus 1.13.4; Apuleius De deo Socratico 153–154]” (J. E. Stambaugh, Sarapis under the Early Ptolemies [Leiden, 1972]:68–74.) According to the third Sibylline Oracle (ca. 140 bce) (108–113), “Cronos, Titan and Iapetos were kings, the goodliest children of Gaia and Ouranos, whom men called Earth and Heaven, dubbing them so because they were the first of all articulate men” (cf. 3.723, and 522–555). According to Fraser (1.299), it is not likely that the Sibyl derived this directly from Euhemerus, since he evidently referred to the Jews at some point in his work in what was regarded by Josephus (Ag.Ap. 1.215–217) as a disparaging manner, and if he applied the same theology to Yahweh as he did to Zeus, that will not have recommended him to the Sibyl. For the Euhemeristic elements in Artapanus’ account of Moses, see Gutman: 2. 120–126. Ps-Eupolemus, probably writing in Palestine in the first half of the second century bce, had already identified Nimrod with the Babylonian Bel and Greek Kronos. The only one of the ‘giants’ to have been rescued from the great Flood, he founded Babylon and built the famous Tower (FGH 724: F 1 and 2). See Freudenthal 1875–79:35–82; Hengel: 1.89; B. Wacholder, Eupolemus (New York, 1974):194–205. Fraser asserts that, “there can be little doubt that Euhemerus was led to his reformation of myth above all by the example of the contemporary deification of Alexander and the Diadochi by various Greek cities [a suggestion already made by J. Kaerst in an article entitled “Alexander der Grosse und der Hellenismus,” Historische Zeitschrift 74 (1895):226], even if he may have been aware of the occasional deification of certain classes of mortals—successful athletes, notable physicians, and others—at a much earlier date, to say nothing of the accepted mortal origin of Asclepius and other gods.… In official quarters his work was probably well received as providing a theological system into which the deified rulers fitted as by right” (1. 294).

14:12. beginning of fornication. For the close connection between fornication and idolatry, cf. Test.Reuben 4:6: “For a pit unto the soul is the sin of fornication, separating it from God (cf. Wisd 1:3), and bringing it near to idols.… 11: For if fornication overcomes not your mind, neither can Beliar overcome you”; Test.Simeon 5:3; Sifre Deut. 171, Finkelstein 218: “ ‘who consigns his son or daughter to the fire’ (Deut 18:10), this refers to one who has intercourse with a heathen woman, and begets from her a child hostile to God”; BT Sanh. 82a: “R. Hiyya b. Abuiah said: He who is intimate with a heathen woman is as though he had entered into marriage relationship with an idol, for it is written, ‘and hath been intimate with the daughter of a strange god’: hath then a strange god a daughter? But it refers to one who cohabits with a heathen woman”; BT Shab. 17b: “They decreed against their bread and oil on account of their wine, and against their wine on account of their daughters, and against their daughters on account of ‘the unmentionable’ (literally, ‘something else,’ i.e., idolatry)”; BT Meg. 25a; Ps-Jonathan on Lev 18:12; Ket. 13b: “most of the idolators are unrestrained in sexual matters.” In Philonic allegory, the son of a whore is a polytheist, “being in the dark about his real father, and for this reason ascribing his begetting to many, instead of to one” (Mig. 69).

13. from the beginning. For the rise of idolatry in the time of Serug (Hebrew sur=turn aside) under the influence of Mastema, see Jub 11:4ff. “This view is entirely unknown to the older rabbinic literature (although it is frequently found among the Church Fathers, e.g. Minucius Felix Octavius 26.7; Justin Apologia 2.15; Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 4.13–15; Tatian Oratio ad Graecos 8; Lactantius Divinae Institutiones 2.16, and later in the Kabbalah). The beginning of idolatry according to the older rabbinic sources, based on their interpretation of Gen 4:26, took place in the time of Enosh (Sifre Deut. 43, Finkelstein 97; Mek. Baḥodesh 6, Lauterbach, 2.239; Mid. Tannaim 20 and 195; BR 2.3; Wayyik.R. 23.3; BT Shab. 118b) According to Maimonides (very likely on the basis of older sources), Enosh himself was an idolator (M.T. Avodat Kokhavim 1.1; cf. Guide 1.36; 3.29, 37; Letter on Astrology). In the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 9.4–6, Nimrod is identified with Zoroaster, and is designated as the one ‘who chose, giant-like, to devise things in opposition to God, and who, after his death by fire, was worshipped by the ignorant populace. This was the beginning of the worship of idols. Subsequent rulers demanded similar adoration to that which was accorded to Nimrod’ ” (Ginzberg, 5. 150–151). It should also be noted that according to St. Augustine, Varro claimed that, “for more than one hundred and seventy years the ancient Romans worshipped the gods without an image. ‘If this usage had continued to our own day,’ he says, ‘our worship of the gods would be more devout.’ And in support of his opinion he adduces, among other things, the testimony of the Jewish race.” (Augustine Civ.Dei 4.31). Cf. Strabo 16.2.35: “[Moses] taught that the Egyptians were mistaken in representing the Divine Being by the images of beasts and cattle, as were also the Libyans; and that the Greeks were also wrong in modelling gods in human form; for, according to him, God is this one thing alone that encompasses us all …” (see P. Boyancé, “La Théologie de Varron,” Revue des Études anciennes 57 [1955] 57–84; Nock 1972:860–865. Nock suggests that the excursus in Strabo may reproduce the creation of a Jew familiar with the ideas of Posidonius). Heinemann (1968:147–150) maintained that Wisd’s theory as to the origin of idolatry is derived from Posidonius, since a similar theory is to be found in Lactantius and Minucius Felix, who are known to have drawn on Seneca’s lost work De Superstitione, and Seneca in turn is known to have drawn from Posidonius. This argument is inadequate, since Seneca is known to have drawn much from Epicurean sources, and the ‘Euhemeristic’ explanation of idolatry found In Minucius Felix and Lactantius is part of a much larger criticism of anthropomorphic gods, which apparently derives from a lost Epicurean source of ca. 150 bce, and is also echoed in Cicero ND, in Josephus (Ag.Ap. 2.242ff (esp. 250–254), in Philodemus On Piety, and many other authors. See Geffcken:xxiiff.

nor will they exist forever. Cf. Isa 2:18; Zech 13:2; Ezek 30:13; Micah 5:12; Ep.Jer. 50ff.

14. empty illusions. kenodoksia is an Epicurean term. We read in K.D. 30: “Such pleasures are due to idle imagination (kenēn doksan) and it is not owing to their own nature that they fail to be dispelled, but owing to the empty imaginings (kenodoksian) of the man” (i.e. a mental picture of some object, which does not really contribute to pleasure, causes us to desire it. Cf. K.D. 15 and 29; Usener:456). Cf. Ps-Aristeas 8; 4 Macc 2:15; 8:19; Philo Mut. 94–96; Jos. 36; Legat. 114; Praem. 100; Virt. 7; QG 3.47; Somn. 1.255; 2.105. Moreover, kenodoksia is a philosophical term with deep roots in Epicurus’ epistemology, for the latter had especially cautioned against the use of kenoi phthongoi or words devoid of meaning (Epistulae 1.38; K.D. 37; Cicero Fin. 2.48; Tusc. 5.73). It was therefore an eminently apt term for the biblical conception of idolatry, which, as Kaufmann had pointed out long ago, was a fetishistic one and therefore saw in the idols objects completely empty and devoid of meaning. On the day when the nations repent of the sin of idolatry they will say, “Our fathers inherited naught but lies, vanity and things wherein there is no profit. Shall a man make for himself gods, they being no gods?” (Jer 16:19). When men stop worshiping fetishistic ‘no-gods’ idolatry shall come to an end (see Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel [Chicago, 1960] 15). Wisd’s words now take on a more poignant meaning. Since the origin of the idols, he argues, is rooted in kenodoksia or total vacuity, “a sudden end was devised for them,” i.e. the moment their vacuous character is disclosed idolatry will immediately evaporate into thin air and completely disappear, almost as if it had never existed.

15. untimely grief. The grief may by hypallage be called “untimely” because the child’s death is premature (Farrar [1888]). Cf. Prov 10:6: penthos aōron; Sir 16:3: penthei aōrō; Euripides Alcestis 168. As Cumont has pointed out, the masters of sidereal divination were much preoccupied with the calculation of life-spans and the types of death predetermined by the stars, writing long chapters on this subject (peri chronōn zōēs: Ptolemy Tetrabiblos 3.2; Vettius Valens 9.8ff). An individual’s natural end could be hastened through the intervention of a murderous star (either Saturn or Mars), which, under certain conditions, causes sudden death. At times the maleficent planets carry away a nursing child from its mother’s breast before a single revolution of the sun has been accomplished: these are the atrophoi or non nutriti (those left unnourished), alluded to by Virgil (Aeneid 6.426–429; cf. Plato Rep. 615C). The enormous rate of infant mortality in the Roman world focused great attention on the fate of the aōroi or inmaturi (those who died before reaching maturity). (On the very high infant mortality rate in Egypt, see M. Hombert and C. Préaux, Chronique d’Égypte [1945] 139ff.) At other times, they cut children off in their adolescence, before marriage could assure them posterity: these are the agamoi or innupti of Tertullian (De Anima 55.4ff; cf. O. J. H. Waszink’s commentary [Amsterdam, 1947] ad loc.). (For the Babylonian origin of the superstitious views concerning the aōroi as well as the biaiothanatoi or those who died a violent death, see E. Ebeling, Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Babylonier [Berlin, 1931] 1:131ff; 145ff. Moreover, Cumont points to a passage in Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos [4.9.12] where one finds grouped together three of the four classes of biothanati mentioned by Virgil [Aeneid 6.430, 435, 479], thus demonstrating that astrology was the source of the aforementioned superstitions. Nock, however, has questioned this interpretation [1973:712–719].) It was further believed that these unfortunate souls, obedient to Fate, had to linger on earth until their appointed time was accomplished, and became demons who lent their aid to diviners and sorcerers. Feeling and reason, at the same time, protested against the cruel doctrine which relegated guilty and innocent alike to long torture. When accident or illness caused the death of a beloved son, could his parents be reconciled to the belief that he would suffer undeserved chastisement? More humane doctrines soon aligned themselves against these cruel superstitions. According to the Pythagoreans, the age of reason did not begin before puberty or sixteen, and until then the soul was exempt from virtue as well as from vice, so that the aōroi could not deserve any punishment. Indeed, according to some thinkers, “the souls that are quickly released from intercourse with men find the journey to the gods above most easy, for they carry less weight of earthly dross” (Seneca De Consolatione ad Marciam 23.1; cf. Plutarch Consolatio ad uxorem 611E). It is hard to determine to what degree these moral ideas had penetrated the popular mind. Religion, however, offered a remedy for the ill to which it had itself lent persuasion. The custom of initiating children to the mysteries became a means of preserving them from the fatal lot which threatened them, and of ensuring their happiness in the other life. Above all, the influence of astral cults, added to that of philosophy, persuaded those parents who were inclined to believe it, that these innocent creatures ascended to the starry heavens. An epitaph of Thasos speaks of a virgin, flower-bearer probably of Demeter and Kore, who was carried off at the age of thirteen by the inexorable Fates, but who, “living among the stars, by the will of the immortals, has taken her place in the sacred abode of the blessed,” and a relief from Copenhagen shows the bust of a little girl within a large crescent surrounded by seven stars, thus indicating that she has risen toward the moon, the abode of blessed souls. (Cumont 1942:282, n.3, 242). Transported thus to heaven, these loved beings were transformed by the tenderness of their relatives into protectors of the family in which their memory survived. Whether they were called ‘heroes’ in Greece, or as elsewhere ‘gods,’ they were always conceived as guardian powers who acknowledged by benefits the worship rendered them. Thus in the middle of the second century the familia of a proconsul of Asia, C. Julius Quadratus, honored a child of eight years as a hero, at the prayer of his father and mother; and at Smyrna the parents of a dearly loved child of four, raised a tomb to this baby as their tutelary god (IGR 4.1377; Kaibel:314). Lieberman (1974:263) writes: “The author of Sapientia Salomonis informs us that when a heathen father was afflicted with untimely mourning, he used to make an image of the child and would worship it as a god. This was a good consolation to a heathen father. The Jew comforted himself in a Jewish manner. The rabbis assert that the Lord himself teaches Torah to the babies who died in their infancy (BT A.Z. 3b). According to another version (Gemara to minor tractate Kallah 2) the angel Metatron teaches them.” We do find, however, that the grief of fond parents, who with great admiration had followed the blossoming mind of their precocious child taken away from them too soon, sought comfort in the idea that the studies in which he had distinguished himself would assure him a favorable lot in the hereafter. A series of sarcophagi, which reproduce the career of a child prematurely dead, show him being instructed by his teacher and then elevated to the rank of hero or raised heavenward on a chariot leading to his deification (Cumont, 1942:344ff). In a letter to Marcellinus, Pliny the Younger eulogizes the daughter of his friend Fundanus: “She was scarce thirteen and already had all the wisdom of age and sedateness of a matron” (Epistulae 5.16). Her tomb was discovered in Rome, and it carries at its top the eagle which symbolizes deification (CIL 6.16331). (For all this, see Cumont 1949:303–342, whose detailed discussion has here been briefly summarized.)

Wisd’s explanations for the origin of idolatry are undoubtedly etiological, but it is likely that the background of the author’s theory lay in certain religious practices of the Greco-Roman age (such as those noted above), which were then projected backward either by him or by his source (just as Euhemerus was probably influenced by the contemporary deification accorded to Alexander and to the Diadochi by various Greek cities). Moreover, even if children who died young were never actually worshiped and no cult-images were ever made of them, the evidence cited by Cumont (however it is interpreted) could easily have served as a sufficient stimulus for the etiology of idol worship expounded in 14:14–16. Guillaumont (1959), Heuten, and Gilbert have noted the close analogy to Wisd’s first explanation provided by Firmicus Maternus’ ‘Euhemeristic’ version of the myth of Dionysus-Zagreus (De errore profanarum religionum 6), in which Liber or Dionysus is the son of a Cretan king named Jupiter. Since Dionysus is the product of an adulterous union, the king’s wife Juno, in her fury, has the infant murdered in the absence of the king by henchmen known as Titans. Upon his return, the father, acerbi luctus atrocitate commotus (=penthei trychomenos patēr), and utterly disconsolate, has an image made in the likeness of his son and institutes a cult. This parallel and the Fulgentius passage quoted immediately below, may well go back to a pagan Hellenistic source, a highly rationalized ‘Euhemeristic’ account of the origins of idol cult. (See G. Heuten’s edition with commentary of Firmicus Maternus De errore profanarum religionum [Bruxelles, 1938] 152–157; Gilbert 1973:153–155; J. Geffcken, “Der Bilderstreit des heidnischen Altertums,” ARW 19 [1919] 292–293.)

having made an image. Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (ca. 467–532 ce, probably identical with the famous bishop of Ruspe), quoting from the Antiquities of one Diophantus of Sparta, tells of an Egyptian named Syrophanes, who, overcome with grief for the loss of his son, erected a statue of him in his house (in aedibus). To please the master of the house, the members of the family decked it with flowers, and slaves even fled to it for sanctuary. Thus the statue gradually became an idol. (Mitologiarum 1.1, ed. Helm [Teubner] 15–17. Cited by R. Holkot, In Librum Sapientiae praelectiones [Venice, 1509]: 139 verso, col. a.) We have an interesting reference to such an Egyptian custom in Mek.Pisha on Exodus 12:30 (Lauterbach, 1:100): “ ‘For there was not a house where there was not one dead.’ R. Nathan says: Were there not houses in which there was no first-born? It means simply this: when the first-born of one of the Egyptians died, they would make an image (eikonion) of him and set it up in the house. On that night such images were crushed, ground and scattered. And in their eyes that day was as sad as though they just then buried their first-born” (cf. PRK, Mandelbaum: 127; Mid. Hagadol, on Exod 12:30, p. 209). A. Calmet has cited Apuleius Metamorphoses 8.7, where we are told that Charite, on the death of her beloved husband Tlepolemus, “spent whole days and nights in miserable longing, and there was an image of her husband, which she had made like unto Bacchus, unto which she rendered divine honors and services, so that she grieved herself even by her consolation.” This motif is already found in Euripides Alcestis 348ff, though in a non-religious context. In the seventeenth century many commentators had already noted Cicero’s intention to set up a shrine for his lost daughter Tullia (Cicero Ad Atticum 12:35–36; Lactantius Divinae Institutiones 1.15, 16–20). Heinisch (1912) cites the decree of Canopus, discovered in 1865, from which we learn that in 237 bce, the synod of this town accorded divine honors not only to Ptolemy III Euergetes and his spouse Berenice II, but also to their daughter, likewise named Berenice, who had died at the tender age of eight, proclaiming her queen of virgins, and establishing an annual festival to commemorate her death. Recently, Dulière (1960) has insisted that the reference here is to Hadrian’s favorite Antinous, who had drowned in Egypt in 130, and in whose honor Hadrian had instituted cultic mysteries and initiation ceremonies which, according to Dio Cassius (69.11.3), had spread almost throughout the inhabited world. Dulière concluded that the entire pericope of 14:12–16 was an interpolation. Actually, as Gilbert has pointed out, Dulière had already been anticipated by Jansenius of Ypres (1644), Gutberlet (1874), Deane (1881), and Farrar (1888), though they did not absolutize the matter as he had done. Most scholars, however, have rightly rejected this hypothesis. Finally, Scarpat (1967, following Motzo [1924]) has suggested that the allusion here is to the cult rendered by the incestuous Caligula to his sister Drusilla, confused by the author of Wisdom with Caligula’s daughter of the same name (see Gilbert 1973:146–157).

what was once a human corpse. Cf. Sib Or 3:721–723: “But we had gone astray from the path of the Eternal and with foolish heart worshiped the works of men’s hands, idols and images of men that are dead.”

16. at the command. epitagē is late Greek prose. Cf. 18:16; 19:6; 3 Macc 7:20; Polybius 13.4.3; Diodorus 1.70. Many commentators place the period after glypta rather than after ephylachtē, for, as Grimm (1860) pointed out in v. 17 speaks of a freely adopted honoring of images rather than one commanded by princes. The author would then be saying that what began as a family custom ended as a state ordinance. Having mentioned rulers, however, he is then naturally led to his second cause of the rise of idolatry, without explicit indication of this transition. If, finding it difficult to begin a new explanation with the relative pronoun, we place the period with Ziegler (1961) after ephylachtē, we should then have to understand the passage as follows: Graven images came to be worshiped at the command of rulers, inasmuch as their demand for official expressions of honor led their distant subjects to the production of images exaggerating their beauty, which then led to their awed worship by the masses.

came to be worshiped. ethrēskeueto is the inchoative imperfect.

17. formed a likeness. anatypoō is first attested here. Cf. 19:6; Plutarch Moralia 329B. It is used only once by Philo (Plant. 27).

a palpable image. emphanē is perhaps an allusion to the epithet of Ptolemy V and Antiochus IV, and Nero’s title emphanēs theos kaisar. Cf. Lactantius Divininae Institutiones 1.15; Minucius Felix Octavius 20.5 (Gilbert 1973:156).

18. who had no knowledge. I.e. “even those who did not know whom the statues represented, or how they originally came to be worshiped” (Farrar).

worship. thrēskeia is found in Herodotus 2.18, 37 and inscriptions in the sense of “ritual” or “cult.” For the meaning “religion,” “service of God,” cf. Philo Legat. 232, 298; Fug. 41 (in Det. 21 it is used in the bad sense of “religious formalism”); Acts 26:5; CH 12.23. It appears three times in Symmachus’ version of the Bible: Jer 3:19; Ezek 20:6, 15; Dan 2:46. J. Van Herten has pointed out that thrēskeia is not found in literary texts after Herodotus, but reappears in inscriptions of the period of Augustus (“Thrēskeia, Eulabeia, Hiketēs, Bijdrage tot de Kennis der religieuze terminologie in het grieksch” [Diss. Amsterdam, 1934] 2–27). The most up-to-date account of this word is given by L. Robert, Études épigraphiques et philologiques [Paris, 1938] 226–235; Robert asserts: “Le mot n’est certainement pas hellénistique; l’argument e silentio est ici très fort; tant et tant d’inscriptions de l’époque hellénistique traitent du culte et louent la piété; on n’y rencontre jamais thrēskeia.” He also concludes that Wisd was written in the Imperial Age; idem, Hellenica 2 (1946):132–133; cf. A. Pelletier, Flavius Josèphe Adapteur de la Lettre d’Aristée [Paris, 1962] 33).

19. forced. Cf. Plutarch Timoleon 36. See H. P. L’Orange, Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture (Oslo, 1947); H. G. Niemeyer, Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der römischen Kaiser (Monumenta Artis Romanae VI, Berlin, 1969).

20. by the charm. Philo similarly writes: “Further, too, they have brought in sculpture and painting to cooperate in the deception, in order that with the colors and shapes and artistic qualities wrought by their fine workmanship they may enthrall the spectators and so beguile the two leading senses, sight and hearing” (Spec. 1.29). Cf. Her. 69; Gig. 59; Decal. 66, 156; Cicero ND 1.42: ipsa suavitate nocuerunt (of the poets); Seneca Ep. 88.18; Dio Chrysostomus 12.50ff; Clem.Alex. Prot 4: “In Rome, the historian Varro says that in ancient times the Xoanon of Mars—the idol by which he was worshipped—was a spear, artists not having yet applied themselves to this specious pernicious art; but when art flourished, error increased.” Discussing the deified Antinous, Clement says: “And why should you enlarge on his beauty?” (Prot.). Cf. also Cicero ND 1.77: “These notions, moreover, have been fostered by poets, painters and artificers, who found it difficult to represent living and active deities in the likeness of any other shape than that of man.”

20. an object of worship. sebasma is late Greek prose, first attested in D.H. 1.30; cf. 15:17 below; Bel and the Snake 27; Acts 17:23; Jos. Ant. 18.345. If our author is thinking of any of the colossal statues of emperors, like that of Augustus at Ancyra, the word sebasma would recall the name “Augustus” (=Sebastos), a word apparently coined at the time (27 bce) of the bestowal on Octavian of the title Augustus for use in the eastern half of the empire. Herod refounded Samaria under the name Sebaste, where he built a splendid temple of Augustus. “In fact he built shrines of the emperor in many cities of his kingdom, refraining only in the cities of Judaea. He went so far in bestowing honors that he felt it necessary to make apologies to his subjects for his violation of national customs, and declared that he acted under orders” (eks entolés kai prostagmatōn [cf. 14:16] [Jos. J.W. 1.403–415; Ant. 15.328–330]); (L. R. Taylor: 160, 171).

21. enslaved. Douleusantes is joined by zeugma both to symphora and tyrannidi.

that may not be associated with others. Cf. Isa 42:8; Philo Ebr. 110: “but they even allowed irrational plants and animals to share the honor which belongs to things imperishable”; Numenius, Frag. 56 (where it is said that the God of the Jews was akoinōnētos, and disdained that anyone should share in his honor).(David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [Anchor Yale Bible 43; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 270-79)

Further Reading:

Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons

To Support this Blog:

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com