Talk:Book of Wisdom

2005 discussion

It might be good for someone who knows about these things to say something comprehensive about New Testament references to this book, and use the passage from Matthew only as an example. —JerryFriedman 00:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think there are any explicit New Testament references to this book at all, but similar language is used. This Matthew passage is the best example of this -- it displays parallel themes and even the same type of language and wording that is found in the Book of Wisdom in order to help the reader make a connection between Jesus and the Suffering Servant figure found in the Old Testament prophecies. The point of mentioning the Matthew passage is to show the influence of the Book of Wisdom. It seems obvious that the author of Matthew had the Book of Wisdom and the Book of Psalms in mind because he employed their language and themes, expecting his Jewish audience to recognize them.Paradiso 06:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long. Given what you said above, my problem with the current article is that it says, "For example," there's this correspondence. That implies to me that there are several similar examples. Instead, you say, that passage is the best example. I'm about to make a change, but since my knowledge of this is only superficial, maybe you (or anyone more knowledgeable than I am) will be able to improve on it. —JerryFriedman 22:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Influence on the Gospel of Matthew

Re: The section on the Influence on the Gospel of Matthew. I didn't know what to do with this, and was ready to either delete it entirely or tag the whole article as falling below wiki standards. Instead, I took a crack at editing it, though more work may need to be done if it is to remain. If we're going to end this article with that section, something more needs to be said or another section added: the article seems to end abruptly. Sayvandelay 14:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at reworking this section. It's not perfect, but I think it's an improvement. Timotheos 01:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, because I've added a section that covers the same ideas but is better sourced. I incorporated about a sentence from this into my edit. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Religious Views

This section needs to be totally redone. It states that Wisdom and Ecclesiastes contradict each other and then gives examples which have no contradictions. Ecclesiastes 4:12 preaches a philosophy of uncertainty, not of despair as in Wisdom 2:1. This section implies that Ecclesiastes does not teach "that trust and fear of God provide the path to redemption," when in fact that is the whole thesis of Ecclesiastes. "The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person" (Ecc. 12:13).

It is also stated that Sirach contradicts Ecclesiastes, again without valid examples. The idea that Ecc. 1:13 and Sirach 3:21-23 are contradictory is full of assumptions which are unnecessary and comical, implying that the seeking which Koheleth urges is "too hard," "above thy strength," and "unnecessary." That's a ridiculous assumption. Someone needs to delete this section and rewrite it. --Malkiyahu (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 14:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Xenophon There's a reference to Xenophon's Memorabilia [2,1:37] which is clearly wrong as chapter 1 of book 2 has only 34 sections. This is annoying. Heracles' conversation with Virtue doesn't begin until section 27. The reference should be to the Memorabilia 2,1:27-34. The resemblance in any case is only slight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.81.77 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Exclusively referring the Apocrypha as "Deuterocanonical" violates NPOV. Probably the majority of persons in the world do not consider the Apocrypha as "deuterocanonical." Papists use that term. As to the Septuagint (LXX), to refer to anything in it as "Old Testament" is anachronistic. When the LXX was made, there was no such concept as "Old Testament" applied to scripture (so far as we know). I don't know of any proof for what the original LXX translators translated, and what they considered as God's Word (Scripture). Nor would their translation of a document prove they considered it the Word of God (Scripture). By the time that the ancient grand codices were made (circa 4th Century AD), the inclusion of works in the single binding does not prove what the original LXX contained at all. In the NT there are no references to any book of the apocrypha as "scripture," nor is it ever quoted as an authority to settle a debate (with such formula as, "It is written!"). Thus I have added the alternative designation of apocrypha for NPOV. And I have deleted the term "Old Testament" where the contents of the LXX are mentioned.

Moreover, I have improved the article by rewording interpretations & opinions as opinions, instead of fact. No one can prove that there was some such continual interpretation since Barnabas, undisputed, held every year by someone somewhere throughout history. Also, I have revised claims to how Christians in general have interpreted some passage; since the generalization about Christians is wrong. Most Christians never heard of these theories. I am a Christian graduate of Bible College, Seminary, & University (e.g., Faculty of Theology in a British University), and I never ever heard this before. And these sorts of statements are of the type very likely to be disputed by various scholars. This article must not read as an exercise in apologetics by a Roman Catholic apologist supporting his POV that the apocrypha is canonical, even if deuterocanonical. EnochBethany (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC))

Anyone know of the quote below?

A person I know told me the quote below, or something like it... is from the Book of Wisdom of Solomon

"When you lack the confidence to rely on reason, you give into the fears cause by ignorance."

Your assistance is appreciated. G. Love — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glendaglove (talk • contribs) 03:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Unsupported non-sequitur removed

To justify why I am removing the following text from the article:

King Josiah was king in Israel; he built (repaired) the temple;[4] like Ezra who came after him he preached the law of the Lord to the kahal, the assembly of the people;[5] and he is praised as being greater and wiser than any king who came before him,[6] greater and wiser than Solomon who sinned. The praise of Josiah's wisdom parallels the words found in Ecclesiastes I:16, "Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem..."

This comes in the middle of a paragraph. From an editorial standpoint it makes no sense. There is no transition in the paragraph which posits that King Josiah may have been the author of Sirach or Ecclesiastes. Nor is any primary scholarly source cited that proposes such a theory. At best, this is original research, but it's actually worse than that. Not one of the three biblical sources cited (Kings, Chronicles, Sirach) actually say that Josiah is greater than any king who came before him, or that he was greater and WISER than Solomon! The verses in Kings clearly indicate that no other king repented with such a full heart as Josiah did.

Thus, I am deleting all the offending text. 68.198.65.141 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. This piqued my curiosity. I tracked down the edit that added that material on May 18, 2013. It was added last year by User:Espresso-con-pana who was blocked indefinitely on October 1, 2014 as a sockpuppet of the previously indefinitely blocked contentious user User:Michael Paul Heart. He appears to have pushed fringe theories and texts and to have inserted original research into articles as well as using sockpuppets to support his viewpoint or to add material so it would not be attributed to his main account. The insertion here was clearly not based on reliable and verifiable secondary sources or scholarship and was either point of view pushing or an effort to mess up the article in response to the blocking of Heart's main account. It shows how subtle these problems can be and how often only some diligent person with initiative can spot the error and correct it. Donner60 (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Some opine that the Gospel of Matthew may contain allusions to the Wisdom of Solomon in the structuring of Matthew's Passion Narrative."  Who?  Cite your sources, please.  Mike Grigsby-Lane  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.9.171 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 

Not in the Good News Bible.

Just noting that this book is not included in the Good News Bible, so a great many Christians are unaware of its existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.135.3 (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Book of Wisdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122002234/http://www.franciscans.org.au/spirituality/campion/Bonaventure%20Book%20of%20Wisdom/wisdom.htm to http://www.franciscans.org.au/spirituality/campion/Bonaventure%20Book%20of%20Wisdom/wisdom.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Book of Wisdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906041916/http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm to http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

one of the wisdom of his exllency the wisdom of engaging with each other avite

Capitalized use of word 'Wisdom' in opening section

Reading the article, I'm a little thrown off by the three instances of the word 'wisdom' in the opening section. Reference these three sentences:

• Generally dated to the mid-first century BC, the central theme of the work is "Wisdom" itself, appearing under two principal aspects.
• In its relation to man, Wisdom is the perfection of knowledge of the righteous as a gift from God showing itself in action.
• In direct relation to God, Wisdom is with God from all eternity.

Why are these capitalized? Throughout the rest of the article, the word 'wisdom' is only capitalized when it's referring to the Book of Wisdom itself (or other proper name references, such as one to Lady Wisdom), and lowercased when talking about regular, everyday wisdom. I'm thinking the above examples should not be capitalized? CaptainAngus (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right! Corrected. Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rafaelosornio: Thank you! I would also love your opinion on the change I just made. I wanted to add some context so the two key sentences don't come across as so declarative by themselves. Thanks again! CaptainAngus (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainAngus:Your last edition is okay. Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rafaelosornio: Awesome, thanks again! CaptainAngus (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)