The Hebrew "Wisdom"
Author(s): R. V. Foster
Source: The Old Testament Student , Nov., 1885, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Nov., 1885), pp. 104-107
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3156653
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Old Testament Student
This content downloaded from
202.94.83.213 on Mon, 22 Aug 2022 05:15:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE HEBREW "WISDOM."
BY PROFESSOR R. V. FOSTER, D. D.,
Theological School, Cumberland University, Lebanon, Tenn.
The term wisdom in Hebrew study corresponds to the term phi-
losophy in Greek and other profane study.
Did the Hebrews have a philosophy ? Yes, undoubtedly.
But what definition does this answer require us to attach to the
term philosophy? This: Philosophy is the love of wisdom which
manifests itself in an earnest endeavor to find a theoretical or practical
solution of the problems of our ^earthly life and environment. The
attempted solution is either theoretical or practical, according to the
nature of the problem investigated.
It is not necessary, in order that it may be called philosophy, that
the inquiry should be conducted in a scholarly, scientific method,
according to the rigid laws of logic. In this case, it would be a
species of philosophy, it is true; but it would not be philosophy the
genus. Otherwise, it could not be said that the Hebrews had a phi-
losophy. They had no developed systems. Conclusions mainly are
stated.
The Greek philosophy inquired into the nature of God, the nature
of man, the origin of the world, and the origin of evil; giving us not
only conclusions, but also the processes whereby the conclusions are
reached. It also discussed the relation of God to man, and of man to
God, and of man to his fellow man. It was therefore ethical, to a cer-
tain extent, in its character.
For what purpose was I made? How shall this purpose be real-
ized ? Is it to be realized by myselt for myself, or by another for me ?
How long shall I exist ? And the mystery ot suffering ?
With all these questions the Hebrew "wisdom," or philosophy,
also dealt, though largely in their ethical and practical aspects.
The Hebrew was a man, and as such he was obliged to be a phi-
losopher; otherwise he could not have been the recipient of a revela-
tion, whether natural or supernatural. No man can hear unless he
listens. No man can see unless he looks. The Hebrews heard and
saw. This proves that they listened and looked. Every languag
has a "why" in it, and a "whence," and a "whither;" and these are
the essential categories of philosophy. The fact that the Hebrew
belonged to the Semitic race gave a peculiar cast to his philosophy;
This content downloaded from
202.94.83.213 on Mon, 22 Aug 2022 05:15:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE HEBREW " WISDOM." 105
but it certainly did not make him any the less a philosopher. His
philosophy may, at the same time, have been poetry of some sor
But that was only its accident; it was none the less philosophy. It
inquired. It answered. And in the longer dramas and epico-drama
there was a central thought and a process. Nor did one Hebrew
believe this, and another that. The state of thought among them was
not altogether chaotic. Many dogmas and ethical precepts were held
in common. So that an inquiry into the Hebrew philosophy is only an
inquiry whether the Hebrews asked such and such questions, and how
they answered them.
But not only did the fact that the Hebrew belonged to the Semitic
race influence his philosophy. So also did his physical, political and
social environments; nor does it make any difference, so far as this
matter is concerned, whether the conclusions of his philosophy were
natural or supernatural revelations. Everything that made him a
Hebrew, whether in his inner or outer aspects, went also to make up
his philosophy. Had the Greek been the vehicle through whom the
philosophic contents of that which we call the Bible were revealed, the
Bible would have been a very different book from what it is. The
Greek's language and habits of thought were different; his pursuits
and all his surroundings were different. Nor was there ever a David
in Athens or Rome, or a Solomon, or Samuel, or Moses. Hebrew
men made Hebrew history; and history is often both the basis and
the frame-work of philosophy, whether the philosophy be a supernat-
ural revelation or not.
The philosophy of the Hebrews is not to be looked for merely in
the so-called Wisdom Books. To affirm the contrary is to imply a
theory of inspiration which is not generally held even by the most
orthodox. If the writers of the Wisdom Books reflected and inquired,
so did the writers of the others. Even the strictly historical books
are the embodiment of a teaching. They imply that the people held
certain beliefs. The writers of none of them were mere pens. The
first chapter of Genesis is called a cosmogony even by those who deny
that the Hebrews had a philosophy. It is an account of the origin of
the world. Was it a supernatural revelation ? If so, whoever wrote
it down was the conscious medium of the revelation. That is to say,
he was not a mere amanuensis. He thought; and he thought on the
subject of which he was writing. He inquired, and wrote down the
answers as they were presented to his mind. No matter how they
were presented. It is a divine cosmogony; but it is also a " Mosaic
cosmogony." Of course, it could not be called a philosophy, had there
not been a previous inquiry on the part of the writer; and the only
This content downloaded from
202.94.83.213 on Mon, 22 Aug 2022 05:15:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
106 THE OLD TESTAMENT STUDENT.
reason why it may not be called so in the fuller sense of the term, is
because only the answer is recorded, and not also the inquiry and th
logical steps whereby the answer is reached.
Whence came this world, with its dry land and its seas, its animal
and its vegetable life, its sun and moon and stars ? And how? And
for what purpose ?
How long the question was before the answer, we know not. But
it continued to be asked, and therewas as often a response of some sort.
To deny it is to deny that there was a capability in man to receive the
revelation of the great answer which came in due time:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the
deep, etc., etc.
No matter whether it be a poem or a prose account, whether inspired
in any sense or uninspired in every sense, it is as good an answer as
any other, and, so far as it goes, is just as truly a philosophy because
of the human element that is in it, and that underlies it, as that of
any ancient or modern speculator on the same subject. " It has thor-
oughly refuted the theory of two eternal principles, of the eternity of
matter," and "has established that one profound, all-pervading view
of the world which rests upon the living synthesis of the ideal and
real, upon the assumption of the absolute personality."
It is not my purpose in this very brief paper to discuss the con-
tents, in their philosophical aspects, of the Mosaic and subsequent "his-
torical books" of the Hebrews, but simply to affirm two propositions:
I. That there is much in the Hebrew writings which is indispu-
tably entitled to be called philosophy.
II. That an exhaustive analysis of the Hebrew philosophy would
require an examination of something more than the mere Wisdom
Books of Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes.
In order that we may know what was the view of the Hebrew
people on any of the great questions of philosophy, whether theolog-
ical or anthropological, upon which all men must needs think more or
less, it is necessary for us to discriminate between those beliefs which
were indigenous to the Hebrew mind and those which were gradually
instilled into it through the agency of inspired men. The Hebrew
doctrine of man, for example, in its various phases, must be sought
partly in the etymology of the various Hebrew terms used to desig-
nate him; partly in the uninspired statements concerning him; and
partly in the teachings of inspired prophets. And the view held by
the prophet on many questions was not infrequently the very view
which was not held by the people.
This content downloaded from
202.94.83.213 on Mon, 22 Aug 2022 05:15:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ORIGIN OF THE OLD TESTAMENT RELIGION. 107
But
But the
theHebrew
Hebrew"Wisdom,"
"Wisdom,"in the
in the
narrower
narrower
and more
and more
technical
technical
sense
sense of
ofthe
theterm,
term,excludes
excludes
thethe
historical
historical
and prophetical
and prophetical
books books
of the of the
Old
Old Testament,
Testament,and
andis is
found
found
only
only
in the
in the
inspired
inspired
meditations
meditations
of the of the
books
books of
ofJob,
Job,Proverbs,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
Ecclesiastes,
and and
somesome
of the
ofPsalms.
the Psalms.
We We
may
may have
havesomething
somethingto to
say,
say,
concerning
concerning
each each
of these,
of these,
in future
in future
num- num-
bers of the STUDENT.
ORIGIN OF THE OLD TESTAM ENT RELIGION.
BY PROFESSOR F. A. GAST, D. D.,
Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church, Lancaster, Pa.
II.
The peculiar genius of the Semitic race, with its predispositio
religion, and the peculiar genius of the Semitic religion, with its
disposition to the Old Testament type; such is the natural b
which the religion of the Old Testament rests, and such the h
conditions which made its revelation possible. But, it may be
Do not these conditions explain all? Is it not conceivable tha
spiritual monotheistic faith of the Old Testament was derived
ically, by natural evolution, from this antecedent Semitic fa
the hypothesis of a supernatural revelation at all necessary to acc
for its origin ?
In reply, we remark that there are elements in the higher
ion that are in no way derivable from the lower. They may r
each other in outward type; in inner life and spirit they are
dissimilar. The one furnishes the mould in which the other is run;
but the mould is of the earth, while the pure metal that fills it and
receives its shape from it, is of heaven.
Take, for instance, the conception of God. If we should regard
the unity of God as the distinctive feature of the Old Testament con-
ception, it would be unreasonable to place an impassable chasm
between it and the old Semitic conception of the national God. The
idea of the one God for the whole world might justly be viewed as
only a further extension and development of the idea of the one god
for a single nation. It is not, however, the unity, abstractly considered,
but the entire character of this one God, as living, super-mundane and
personal, that distinguishes Old Testament religion from the ancient
Semitic, as well as from all other heathen religions. Heathenism has
never been able to rise to the idea of the absolute, yet personal God.
It cannot penetrate behind the powers of the world, and see Him, the
This content downloaded from
202.94.83.213 on Mon, 22 Aug 2022 05:15:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
