Wisdom

views updated

WISDOM

WISDOM . The term wisdom has been used with a great variety of meanings in the course of history. A survey quickly shows that every culture has or has had its ideal of wisdom and recorded it in oral or written sapiential literature. In particular, the relation, both historical and systematic, between wisdom on the one hand and religion and philosophy on the other, varies a great deal. This article can give only a limited selection from the broad range of sapiential traditions and ideas.

General Terminology

As far as we can judge from the terms used and their history, wisdom was originally a practical matter, namely "insight" into certain connections existing in human life and in the world and modes of behavior derived from this insight and put into the service of instruction and education. The Indo-European root of the word wisdom, *ueid -, connotes "perceiving, seeing" (compare Greek idein, "idea," and Latin videre, "to see"). The German language has preserved the ancient connection between Weisheit ("wisdom"), Wissen ("knowledge"), and Wissenschaft ("science"). A person's wisdom depends on what he or she has seen and thereby come to know. It is therefore a practical knowledge, the primordial shaper of human behavior toward the environing world (to the extent that this knowledge resists the pressures for immediate action). The same practical element is manifest in other cultures as well. Thus the Hebrew ḥokhmah has to do with "skill, ability" (ḥkm ); the Akkadian némequ with "dexterity and skill"; Greek sophia with "cleverness" or "skill" in any of the arts or professions of life (carpentry, medicine, poetry, music, etc.). The Akkadian word for a teacher of wisdom or learned person, ummanu, was borrowed from Sumerian and originally meant "master craftsman." The cultivation and transmission of cumulative experience in coping intellectually with the world was done mainly in schools that were the seedbeds of literary culture and the forerunners of the later "schools of wisdom" or universities. Oral tradition was likewise controlled by specific groups that were responsible for the maintenance of tradition.

Wisdom, Religion, and Philosophy

If religion can be broadly conceived as a way of coping, theoretically and practically, with the problems of the world, nature, and society, then wisdom is one part of this effort. In fact, wisdom and the various contents of the religions have historically been closely connected. Wisdom was regarded as an area of religious tradition and derived its authority from its relation to particular gods (especially the sun, as in Mesopotamia and Egypt) or religious principles (e.g., concepts of world order, such as the ancient Egyptian maat ). In this form, wisdom contributed to the development of theological thought and is part of its history ("priestly wisdom"). Particular divinities were venerated in cult and magic (the two are difficult to distinguish) as protectors or representatives of religious knowledge (Ea and Marduk in Babylonia, Ptah in Egypt). The legitimation of wisdom by more or less religious figures, such as kings, teachers, and priests, belongs in the same context. We know instances of wisdom being personified as a divine hypostasis (e.g., in Buddhism, Judaism, gnosticism, Zoroastrianism). In many religions wisdom is an attribute of the divinities; in monotheistic religions it is an attribute of the supreme God. The wisdom of God transcends that of human beings and makes it pale into insignificance; in Christianity the wisdom of God even turns human wisdom into folly (see below). This Christian revaluation of the value set upon wisdom in antiquity did not, however, lead to an abandonment of wisdom but to its relativization and to a radical transformation of the whole concept.

This more or less positive relation between wisdom and religion is only one side of the coin. Just as often, wisdom went its own way alongside official religion; it was even, as in the ancient Middle East, in tension or conflict with it. To the extent that this was true, it was a profane, secular way of coping with the world that avoided or excluded any appeal to traditional religious entities (gods, cult, priests). It thus paved the way for philosophical and ultimately also for scientific thinking (see the etymological connection mentioned earlier between the German words for wisdom and science). This development is most easily seen among the Greeks, where the concept of philosophy, or "love of wisdom," took shape. According to tradition (Diogenes Laertius, 1.12; Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes 5.3.8) the term went back to Pythagoras and was then taken over by Plato and Aristotle, who gave it its normative meaning. It is clear that the projection of the Platonic conception of philosophy and science back onto Pythagoras meant a reinterpretation of the latter's simple, prescientific notion of wisdom. Pythagoras was undoubtedly a teacher of wisdom, not a scientist or mathematician in the later sense of these words; his explanation of the cosmos had at its center a number symbolism that could not yet be called scientific, since in it number, ritual, and doctrine of the soul still formed a unity (Burkert, 1972). In any case, philosophy retained its practical meaning of "way of life" down through the centuries and has not lost it even today. Ancient Greek wisdom, documented in gnomic poetry (Hesiod, Mimnermos, Solon, Phocylides, Theognis), with its simple key idea of "moderation" (mēden agan ) or "fitness of act to time and situation" (kairon gnōthi ), found its extreme application in the so-called Sophists, who converted wisdom (sophia ) into practical rationality and thereby brought its dangers to light for the first time. In contrast to the Sophists, Socrates avoided the concept of wisdom and reserved this quality for God alone (Plato, Apology 20–22). For Plato wisdom was the supreme virtue (Republic 441c–d). Aristotle distinguished between the practical wisdom of everyday life (phronēsis ) and speculative wisdom (sophia ), which concerns itself with "first things" (Nicomachean Ethics 4.5.2, 15.1.5). The distinction marked the transition to systematic wisdom, or philosophy. Nonetheless, in the history of philosophy its ancient root—"wisdom for living"—has repeatedly surfaced; in particular it has found ever new expression in ethical systems and endeavors (e.g., those of Spinoza, Kant, Fichte, and Schopenhauer). In his Wörterbuch der Philosophie ([1910–1911] 1980, vol. 1, p. 446), Fritz Mauthner formulates the difference between wisdom and practical "prudence," and between wisdom and philosophy or science with their goal of theoretical knowledge, as follows:

In my opinion, wisdom seems to mean not only that those who have this quality, possession, or way of thinking are able on every occasion to act or think with rare prudence in pursuing their theoretical or practical goals; it means that in addition they are able to judge the value of the theoretical and practical goals in question. It also means perhaps that such persons act according to their judgments. Schopenhauer was certainly a philosopher but hardly a wise man. Montaigne was a wise man but not really a philosopher. We think of Socrates as being both wise man and philosopher.

Problems of a Typology

Since it is not possible at present (or ever, in my opinion) to write a history of the various ideas of wisdom, scholars have quickly settled for providing at least a typology of the concepts of wisdom. Wisdom has taken these broad forms: an anthropological ability to cope with life (the oldest and most widespread form); a rational system (interpretation of the cosmos, philosophy, beginnings of science); and a personification, hypostasis, goddess, or attribute of God.

Any attempt at greater detail becomes mired in the problems of the given historical context. It is possible, for example, with Edward Conze to compare the Buddhist (Mahāyāna) Prajñapāramitā ("perfect wisdom") with the figure of Sophia in early Judaism and to find surprising similarities (Conze, 1968, pp. 207–209). There are even chronological correspondences: the hypostatization of both ideas of wisdom began about 200 bce and yielded similar conceptions. Yet differences of content are unmistakable: Prajñapāramitā is a personification of Buddhist insight into the "emptiness" of the world and has no connection with an idea of God; the Jewish Sophia became a divine hypostasis that can also be mediator of creation and identifiable with the Law (Torah). The situation is the same with parallels between Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Iranian ideas of wisdom, each of which retains its own special character and cannot be wholly assimilated to the others and made to coincide with them. By and large, the only common element is the shift in the thematization of wisdom from an anthropological skill to a central religious figure or person who mediates wisdom. In this shift wisdom changes from subject to object; an anthropological capacity for insight becomes a form of revelation about the cosmos or God. The content of wisdom as insight into the coherence of the world and life takes on a religious and, to some extent, esoteric character (as in the Wisdom of Solomon, gnosticism, and Mahāyāna Buddhism). This development did not occur wherever ideas of wisdom existed (thus except for Israel and Iran it did not occur in the Near East or in Greece). It looks as if a necessary condition of this development is the existence of a canonical literature that accepts the idea of wisdom. "Revelation" is identified with wisdom inasmuch as wisdom becomes the content of revelation and as a result either heightens the importance of canonicity or permits an extension of canonicity (as, for example, in the Prajñapāramitā literature or the gnostic writings).

This literary documentation for the idea of wisdom makes possible some typological classifications that should not be overlooked. Thus the "typical" wisdom genre is the gnōme (Lat., sententia ), that is, the tersely formulated "sentence" or maxim, or, more generally, the proverb. The oldest collections of wisdom traditions are collections of proverbs that can be developed into literary works on the theme of wisdom or can at least supply material for such ("teachings," "disputations," dialogues). Omens, riddles, fables, parables, and metaphors are also frequently storehouses of wisdom. Wisdom is thus not limited to a particular literary form, although it is closely linked with the proverb and maxim. Its origin in the oral tradition of the preliterary period of history can be demonstrated only through inference from the presence of such traditions among contemporary nonliterate peoples. There is hardly a people that does not possess some stock of wisdom traditions; this stock is the source of wisdom in the original sense of the term. Its beginnings are lost in the darkness of prehistory. The question whether the often asserted "international" character of wisdom literature is to be explained by evolution (from an original common possession) or by diffusion (through spread and borrowing) cannot be further answered. There are many arguments for the second hypothesis, but the first theory can also be helpful in examining many cultures. In any case, both forms of development can be seen at work in the course of history (the ancient Near East is a classic example of the borrowing of wisdom traditions). The important thing, however, is what particular cultures, literatures, and religions did with the common treasury of wisdom; these results are attractively multifaceted and pluralistic.

The Many Forms of Wisdom

Space allows only a limited survey of some of the principal forms taken by ideas of wisdom. The emphasis will be on the ancient Near East, which decisively molded the image of wisdom (transmitted through the biblical heritage). Only a brief glance can be taken at India and East Asia, which developed an independent form of wisdom that has influenced the culture and life of these peoples down to our own day.

Mesopotamia (Sumer and Babylonia)

The Near East possessed expressions of wisdom at a very early date, although these did not lead later on to a unitary concept of wisdom. The dominant element in this wisdom was skilled proficiency in insightful understanding of the world, human beings, and society. No one doubted the divine origin of wisdom, even if an increasing awareness of the difference between divine and human wisdom manifested itself in later literature and led to a crisis in the wisdom tradition. The basic idea of the wisdom tradition was what scholars have named the "act-consequence connection," that is, the early insight that specific actions have or can have specific consequences in the lives of human beings. People attempted to find rules of behavior by observing their human environment, but they did not advance as far as systematic reflection or even develop an ethic of behavior (this step was left for the Greeks and the Chinese). Their observations, handed down in the form of aphorisms, provided valuable counsel for kings, officials, and scribes. The storehouse for this wisdom was the school, and its teachers were the scribes, who were therefore regarded as wise beyond others. Wisdom derived its authority from its being traced back to divinities (especially Utu, Shamash, Ninurta, Enki, Inanna) or prehistoric wise men (Shuruppak, Gilgamesh). Because of its origin and approach this wisdom had a eudaimonistic and at times even a mantic character, but in the late period it turned pessimistic and skeptical. The dogma of the act-consequence connection to a great extent prevented the raising of new questions; when these were finally asked they led to a helpless skepticism (the problem of Job, the suffering just man; the problem of a just world order). Modesty, uprightness, consideration for others (love of neighbor), and deliberation were the principal virtues; their cultivation brought life, happiness, children (sons), and God's providential care.

The decisive force in the development of ancient Mesopotamian wisdom was that of the Sumerians. The Akkadians for their part mainly translated, transmitted, and interpreted, while adding a few new forms of their own (Wisdom of Ahikar, omen literature). The beginnings of wisdom are to be found in the early "lists" or "inventories" in which language was used as a means of "inventorying" the world and thus to some extent ordering or systematizing it. This kind of wisdom has therefore been called "list wisdom" and understood as a first approach to scientific effort (Soden, 1936). More developed approaches led from a simple listing of objects to an appraisal of them; this has come down to us in the form of disputations (literature of disputes over relative values). This kind of wisdom has been described as "value wisdom" (Hans Heinrich Schmid, Wesen und Geschichte der Weisheit, Berlin, 1966). The rise of proverbs relating to occurrences in nature and society brought for the first time the formulation of simple factual situations (called therefore the "wisdom of events"). This stage paved the way for wisdom sayings in the narrower sense. The latter emerged from observation of human behavior (initially without thematizing the act-consequence connection), first in proverbs and then clearly in various "counsels," which unfortunately have come down to us only in fragmentary form (Counsels of Shuruppak, Counsels of Wisdom ). Wisdom gradually made its way into various other genres; meanwhile links were also established between wisdom and ideas of a socio-ethical and legal kind from royal and legal texts (e.g., conceptions of protecting the weak, widows, and orphans; doing good and hating evil; practicing righteousness). Wisdom thus sought to formulate and thereby give insight into the basic rules governing the cosmos. The gods had established a just world order; it was for human beings to learn this order and act accordingly. The challenge to this outlook by, for example, historical events led to a crisis of wisdom, since the act-consequence connection came into question and the theme of the "suffering just man" became topical. This was the subject of the "Job poems," which followed the "complaint and response paradigm" (ersha-hunga ). To this genre belong the following: Sumerian Job, the Poem of the Righteous Sufferer (also called I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom [Ludlul bel nemeqi ], from its opening words), the Babylonian Theodicy, and the satirical Dialogue of a Master and Slave (or Dialogue of Pessimism ), which probably does not belong to the wisdom literature but is nonetheless very informative in regard to it. The conclusion reached in these works is that God's action is inscrutable and his wisdom different from that of human beings. The act-consequence connection is pushed into the background but not abandoned, since insight into the order governing the world is denied to human beings. In all this we can see wisdom in the process of leaving our earth and becoming a supratemporal system and part of the divine world (to which in fact it had always belonged).

Egypt

Unlike Mesopotamia, Egypt did not have a "list wisdom" as a preliminary stage of wisdom; instead the sapiential saying (maxim) served as the starting point of a wisdom literature (the various "counsels"). The sapiential saying either contained a simple statement about the world and social relationships or it already connected consequences with specific actions that were either recommended or disapproved. Unlike the Mesopotamians, the ancient Egyptians developed the concept of a cosmic order (maat ) that became basic to the idea of wisdom. The goddess Maat was a daughter of Re, the sun god, and symbolized truth, justice, and order in cosmos and society. The pharaoh was her representative on earth. The wise had to act like Maat; agreement with her bestowed success, disagreement brought punishment (unhappiness). Subordination to Maat was therefore the mark of the wise. Wisdom supplied the needed rules, which were based on tradition and experience (which included successive reinterpretations). Examples of wisdom or, as Egyptologists prefer to say, of "counsels" or "instructions," go back to about 2800 bce. Only the names of the earliest have come down to us (Instructions of Imhotep, Instructions of Djedefhor ). The Instruction of Ptahhotep is the oldest surviving document of this genre (fifth dynasty). It is filled with optimism about the order (maat ) that exists and is known and with an unbroken confidence in the act-consequence connection. Modesty, uprightness, self-control, subordination, silence, are virtues of the wise. The idea of the silent sage influenced Egyptian biographical literature. Citations from the wisdom literature can be demonstrated in numerous inscriptions.

Most of the remaining "instructions" are from the Middle Kingdom (c. 2135–1660 bce) and are "tendentious writings" that discuss problems of wisdom and are therefore also called "disputation literature." Among them are the Instruction for Merikare (tenth dynasty), in which the first mention is made of the judgment of the dead; the Instruction of King Amenemhet to His Son Sesostris (twelfth dynasty), which was probably a model for Proverbs 22:17–24:22, although the former is more pessimistic and materialistic; and the Instruction of Cheti, Son of Duauf, a piece of publicity for the civil service. The threat to the old order shows through in the Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage and the Protest of the Eloquent Peasant.

To the period of the New Kingdom (c. 1570–1085 bce) belong the Instruction of Ani (eighteenth dynasty), which defends traditional authority against criticism, and the Instruction of Amenemope (twenty-second dynasty), which is strongly pietistic and calls for humility toward the hidden rule of the sun god. From the late period (first millennium ce) we have only the very homespun Instruction of the Papyros Insinger and the instruction of a certain Ankhsheshonk. Characteristic of later wisdom (from the eighteenth dynasty on) is the realization, in Egypt no less than in Babylonia, of the limitations of human knowledge and the freedom of the divinity; this meant that the act-consequence connection, though weakened, was not completely abandoned, but was considered to reside in the impenetrable recesses of the godhead. Authority, tradition, humility, circumspection, and silence continued to be themes of wisdom. In fact, in the late period wisdom and piety came to be more closely identified. Maat yielded to the godhead (Re). Devout individuals had as their partner no longer Maat but God; God became the guarantor of the act-consequence connection, which was hidden from the devout but which they nonetheless humbly accepted as existing. Wisdom now consisted in this knowledge of God and his free will, a knowledge that was familiar to the Bible and probably exerted an influence on it. For that matter, a monotheistic or henoheistic current runs through the entire wisdom literature.

Ancient Israel, Judaism

Israelite wisdom literature (Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes ) underwent developments comparable to those in Babylonia and Egypt. In its earliest, preexilic form, wisdom is here, as in the ancient Near East generally, not specifically religious but focused on the act-consequence connection in the cosmos and in individual lives (see Prv. 22:13–23:11). It is not opposed to faith in Yahveh but on the other hand has only peripheral contacts with it (see Prv. 16:1–22, 16:28–29). Yahveh, like the ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian sun god, is guarantor of the cosmic order that governs the lives of human beings. Wisdom is primarily concerned with this-worldly questions affecting the order and security of human life; observation and insight into what goes on in the world and society play their part here. From a literary standpoint the proverb or maxim is the basic form of transmission (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes ; later on, the Book of Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon ). Ascription to Solomon (c. 970 bce) has a historical basis to the extent that international communication (especially with Egypt) flourished during that period (see the First Book of Kings 5:9–14). From that time on in Israel, as elsewhere, the "wise man" (ish ḥakham ) had his place alongside the priest and the prophet, and the area of tradition with which he dealt soon became one of the most important in Israelite literature (see Ben Sira 24:3–7).

In its historical development this literature reflects shifting approaches to wisdom until the latter's crisis and disintegration (Job, Ecclesiastes ). To begin with, ancient wisdom is increasingly theologized, that is, connected with the Yahvistic faith, but also systematized or dogmatized and reduced to a series of anthropological contrasts (see Prv. 10–15). The wise and the foolish are turned into contrasting types, as are the devout and the ungodly, the sensible and the ignorant, and so on. The act-consequence connection changes (in the post-exilic period) to a connection between behavior and its results (Prv. 10:30, 11:3–4). Corresponding dualistic traits make their appearance as human beings are divided into the just and the wicked, and the cosmos into good and evil, just and unjust. Wisdom itself withdraws into heaven and is personified (see below). The ancient program of wisdom, which urged insight into human beings and the world through observation and its application, comes under the control of strict monotheism and the doctrine of creation, both of which leave little room for independent human thought. As a result, the crisis of dogmatized wisdom becomes radical and leads in the Book of Job to its rejection. As in the Babylonian world, an appeal is made at this point to the inscrutability of God (see Jb. 40), a solution that is accepted in later Judaism. At the same time, however, a return to the ancient, authentic concept of wisdom is urged (Jb. 38–39): understanding of the world consists in the acknowledgement of its given order, even though insight into it is limited. The most radical break with the wisdom tradition comes in the Hellenistic period in the person of Qohelet (the purported author of Ecclesiastes ), who abandons the act-consequence connection as a means of insight, is skeptical about an order in the world, and demonstrates the meaninglessness of human existence. Wisdom is no longer available in this world (see also Jb. 28). Reverence is still shown toward creation and its distant creator, but the "historicality of human existence" and its transitory character are thematized for the first time. Qohelet offers no solution for the crisis; the world and human beings remain unintelligible.

This situation, which we meet only in the Bible, had consequences that probably led to the disintegration of the biblical worldview in gnosticism. But Jewish apocalypticism too had some of its roots in wisdom: the removal of wisdom from the world led to an eschatological hope; the introduction of dualism into the cosmos (see above) led to the apocalyptic doctrine of the two kingdoms; historical events had deprived the scribes, who were the transmitters of wisdom, of their ancient theater of operations, the royal court, and they dreamed of its future restoration. Gnosis and apocalyptic were connected.

Hellenistic influence probably played a part also in the complete transformation of the figure of wisdom (Ḥokhmah). It becomes a suprahuman, otherworldly personage, a divine hypostasis (Prv. 8:22–31; Ben Sira 4:11–19, 24:3–22; Wis. 6–9), a mediator of revelation and creation (Prv. 3:19, Ben Sira 24:3); it is even identified with the Torah, or Law, as the content of the word of God (Ben Sira 24:8, 24:23; 1 Bar. 3:9–4:4). It takes on the traits of a goddess (perhaps Isis Panthea) and, as Lady Wisdom, becomes the antagonist of Lady Folly, another personification, modeled on Aphrodite or Astarte (Prv. 7:9–13, 9:1–18). "Kinship" with her, such as the just or the wise have, bestows immortality (Wis. 6:17) and even makes one like God (Wis. 6:18). This shift from a horizontal role, as an anthropological skill in understanding of the world, to a vertical role leads in the Wisdom of Solomon (first century bce) and then especially in the work of Philo Judaeus (first century ce) to the idea of wisdom (Gr., sophia ) as an otherworldly figure accessible only through esoteric "knowledge." Communication with this distant heavenly wisdom is accomplished in the philosophy of Philo through the Logos (the divine intelligible word), which represents "wisdom close to us." Sophia is thus accessible only through revelation and knowledge of the Logos. It is no longer available in this world, but has vanished from it (Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch 42:1–8, 4 Ezr. 5:9–10, Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch 48:36). At this point the way is already being paved for the gnostic conception of wisdom.

Christianity and gnosis

Early Christianity accepted the early Jewish conception of wisdom at various levels. On the one hand, the early Jesus tradition (the purported source of the sayings of Jesus, known as the Q source) took over the ancient Israelite proverbial wisdom (explicit reference is made to Solomon in Mt. 12:42, Lk. 11:31); on the other hand, Jesus himself is understood as the embodiment of wisdom (Lk. 7:35 and parallels; cf. Mt. 23:34–36 with Lk. 11:49). He is "filled with wisdom" from his childhood (Lk. 2:40, 2:52) and surpasses even Solomon in this respect (Mt. 12:42, Lk. 11:31). His deeds and teachings demonstrate his wisdom (Mk. 6:2, Mt. 13:54). Scholars therefore speak of a "wisdom-Christology" as one of the earliest forms of christological statement. In the letters of Paul wisdom plays an important role in his dispute with the community in Corinth (1 and 2 Corinthians ), where a wisdom that was probably already interpreted in a Gnostic manner was being preached and was finding expression in ecstatic utterances (revelations). In response, Paul conceives the momentous idea that Christian wisdom, represented by the Redeemer, is foolishness (mōria ) to the world, this wisdom being the cross that as sign of the "weakness of God" (1 Cor. 1:25) is the very sign of his "strength." God has destroyed "the wisdom of the wise" and turned it into "foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:18–22, 2:6–8). In the presence of the true wisdom of God, which has been revealed in Christ, the traditional wisdom of this world has been reduced to naught, but at the same time it has also been fulfilled. Those who believe in Christ possess "the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24, 1:30, 2:10–12, 3:18). Old Testamental and Jewish wisdom literature of two centuries before the common era is here given a completely new interpretation and thereby rescued from the crisis into which it had fallen; on the other hand, limits are also set for any future Christian conception of wisdom. The critical acceptance of ancient wisdom traditions and the ambivalent response of Christian theology to philosophy both have their roots here (see Thomas Aquinas on the one side and Martin Luther on the other). Meanwhile, as the Letter of James in particular shows, the principle is still accepted that wisdom shows its truth in ethico-moral practice: Christian life is wisdom made manifest (Jas. 3:13–17; cf. Jas. 1:5). The ancient idea of wisdom is thus revived here; it becomes a Christian virtue for coping with life.

In my opinion, Gnosticism has its roots in those parts of early Jewish sapiential teaching that, like Ecclesiastes, challenged the traditional picture of the world. Independently of this heritage from tradition and the history of ideas, Gnostic literature too continues to present wisdom in the guise of transmitted sayings, for the most part in Christian form (from the Nag Hammadi corpus, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip; see also Silvanus and the Sentences of Sextus ), but also in new forms of its own (The Thunder, Perfect Mind ). Most notable, however, is the figure of Sophia, or Pistis Sophia ("faith wisdom"), an ambivalent embodiment of the Gnostic Pleroma, especially in the Barbelo and Valentinian forms of gnosis. According to some heresiological accounts and original (Nag Hammadi) texts, Sophia is a companion of the most high God; more precisely, she is the feminine aspect of his first manifestation or emanation, whose masculine aspect or consort may be identified with the Primal Man, the Son of man, or Christ (Seth). A second, lesser Sophia must also be included in the series of "syzygies" (paired aeons) that derive from the first pair. Other passages—and these are in the majority—describe Sophia variously as one of the final aeons: the one that, as mother of the demiurge (Ialdabaoth), is indirectly involved in the fate of the created world. But she is simultaneously active in the work of redemption, repairing the harm done by the loss of the spark of light, inasmuch as Sophia herself, split into two parts—an upper and a lower, a greater and a lesser, a part of life and a part of death, of truth and of lie, or simply as Sophia and Achamoth (the Aramaic word for "wisdom")—suffers in an exemplary fashion the fate of the fall and redemption. This version is characteristic of the so-called Barbelo Gnostics and of the Valentinians; it is also attributed to the Cainites and the Ophites, as well as to the Sethians. Several texts from Nag Hammadi also belong here (e.g., Apocryphon of John, Hypostasis of the Archons, Gospel of the Egyptians, Trimorphic Protennoia ). Gnostic wisdom (sophia ) serves to express many sides of gnostic thought. It serves as an image of the self-estrangement of God in emanation and reflection; thus it represents the feminine aspect in God, while leaving his perfect unity undiminished. But Wisdom is also (as aeon) the consort of the Savior and is intimately connected with both demiurgic (cosmological) and soteriological processes. This has nothing to do with feminist ideas; behind it, rather, stands the heritage of the Jewish wisdom tradition in its later form.

Iran and Zoroastrianism

It is often forgotten that Iran too has produced an extensive wisdom literature that goes by the Middle Persian name of handarz (early New Persian, andarz ), meaning "advice, instruction." This too has been handed down in various forms of gnomai. It is preserved only in Middle Persian, but it doubtless had Avestan (Old Iranian) precursores (such as the now lost Barish nask ). At the center of this literature is "wisdom" (MPers., khrad, or xrat ), whose representatives or transmitters were kings of the prehistoric period (e.g., Jam, Ōshnar) and the Sasanid period (e.g., Chosrau I), viziers (e.g., Wazurgmihr ī Bokhtagān), and priests (e.g., Ādurbad ī Mahraspandān). Here again collection and transmission were the work of priestly schools or the (fire) temples. Since thought, along with speech and action, played a dominant role in Zoroastrianism, great attention was paid to the teaching of religious knowledge. This knowledge was identified with wisdom. But in fact the "knowledge" in question was not only religious, theological, and cultic. Iran had either taken over (via Hellenism) or had itself produced a great deal of secular knowledge.

Nonetheless, the religious framework within which the wisdom tradition was placed played a very important role. According to one of the principal works, Mēnōg ī Khrad (Spirit of Wisdom), all wisdom flows from a single wisdom that goes back to God. Two works in particular are important in this context. One is the sixth book of the encyclopedia Dēnkard (Acts of Religion); the other is Dādistān ī Mēnōg i Khrad (Book of Judgments of the Spirit of Wisdom). Both originated in the Sasanid period but preserve older material as well. Book 6 of the Dēnkard goes back in part to the Avestan Barish nask; other material comes from oral tradition. Its content is largely religious and has to do with Zoroastrian teaching on cleanliness; it is therefore highly ritualistic in character. In this context wisdom is correct knowledge and correspondingly correct behavior in things religious. "This world was created by Ōhrmazd the Lord [Av., Ahura Mazdā] with knowledge (dānāgih ). He maintains it with sagacity (frazānagīh ) and manliness (mardābagīh ); ultimately He will become joyful through it" (Shaked, 1979, sec. 311). This is interpreted as follows by the sages (dānāgān ): "The thing of Wisdom (khrad ) is this: sagacity (frazānagīh ), manliness (mardābagīh ) and the hope of the Renovation" (ibid., sec. 312). The same passage goes on to say: "The substance of wisdom (khrad ) is similar to that of fire. For nothing in this world may become so perfect as that which is done by wisdom (khrad )" (ibid., sec. 313). In the Dēnkard, "character" (khēm or xēm ) is superior even to wisdom, since "wisdom is in character; and religion is in both wisdom and character" (ibid., sec. 6; see also sec. 2). Ōhrmazd creates creatures through "character," "holds them with wisdom, and takes them back to himself by religion" (ibid., sec. 11).

In other, more secular handarz texts wisdom is at the head of the virtues and leads human beings to a knowledge of their duties. Ōhrmazd created the following spiritual realities that help human beings to that goal: "innate wisdom, acquired wisdom, character, hope, contentment, religion [dēn ], and the consultation of the wise" (Āyadgar ī Wazurgmihr 43, cited in Shaked, 1979, p. xxvi). Acquired wisdom is gained through education; innate wisdom preserves human beings from fear and sin. Clearly, in Zoroastrianism wisdom is firmly embedded in a religious context (although secular wisdom is not completely absent). Wisdom is primarily a matter of Zoroastrian knowledge; the latter defines its essence. It is therefore the duty of the faithful to follow the "wise" (teachers, priests) and ask them questions; association with them brings God close to one. Parts of Iranian wisdom literature, however, are also marked by a fatalistic pessimism reminiscent of Ecclesiastes (Shaked, 1979, sec. D). "Destiny" (bakht, brēh, zamān ) determines human beings; their action is geared to its accomplishment. We see here the influence of Iranian teaching on fate (i. e., Zurvanism), an influence also to be seen in modern Persian literature wherever this is in continuity with ancient Iranian wisdom traditions (proverbial literature, didactic poetry).

Wisdom clearly emerges as a heavenly person or hypostasis, the Spirit of Wisdom (Mēnōg ī Khrad), in the work of the same name. Wisdom is here viewed as one of the "holy immortals" (Amahraspandān; Av., Amesha Spentas); in fact, the author devotes more prayers to her than to the others (1.53). She is "original wisdom (āsn khrad ) from the heavens and the worlds"; she dwells with Ōhrmazd and combines all wisdom in herself (57.3–32); she was created by Ōhrmazd (8.3, 8.8), and through her he created the world (1.11, 1.49, 57.5); through her Ōhrmazd keeps the world in existence (1.12). Her most important function is instruction or, as the case may be, revelation. Each of the sixty-two chapters following upon the introduction to the work begins with questions by an (anonymous) "wise man" (dānāg ), which Wisdom then answers at length. The book is thus a compendium or catechism of Zoroastrianism and derives its authority from the heavenly wisdom of God. The "wise man" who passes its contents on is evidently a representative of the Zoroastrian community or priesthood. He had wandered through the world, from land to land and city to city, looking for wisdom, until he realized that true wisdom was to be found in his religion; then this wisdom appeared to him in bodily form as Ōhrmazd's Spirit of Wisdom (Mēnōg ī Khrad) and instructed him (1.14–61). The most likely equivalent of this Wisdom in the Avesta is Vohu Manah (Vahuman, Vahman), the Good Mind; "primordial or inherent wisdom" (āsn khrad) is found in Yasna 22.25 and 25.18 (āsnō khratush ) in connection with the Zoroastrian concept of faith ("the innate understanding Mazda-made").

India

Some of the earliest Indian wisdom literature is found in the collections of proverbial wisdom that were made for rulers or kings, as, for example, the well-known Pañcatantra or the Hitopadeśa (Instruction in What Is Beneficial). The Mahābhārata, the Indian national epic, contains in its didactic sections a good deal of ancient wisdom tradition; this includes the Bhagavadgītā in particular. The important part played by knowledge or insight (jñāna ) in ancient Indian thought (especially in the Upaniṣads) has given wisdom a central position in India. It is difficult to distinguish this wisdom from philosophy, and philosophy in turn from religion; each shares in the character of the others. The Bhagavadgītā praises "the way of knowledge or wisdom" in preference to the way of action (karman ): "A man of faith, intent on wisdom (jñāna ), his senses (all) restrained, wins wisdom; and, wisdom won, he will come right soon to perfect peace" (4.39; trans. Robert C. Zaehner, The Bhagavad-Gita, London, 1973). Brahmanic philosophy or religion did not, however, reach the point of personifying wisdom or knowledge. This step was taken only in Buddhism, in which the Indian ideal of knowledge, the way to deliverance from the cycle of births (saṃsāra ) without reliance on the priestly tradition or extreme asceticism took new forms. But the objectification (hypostatization) of redemptive knowledge or transcendental wisdom (prajñā ; Pali, pañña ) came only in Mahāyāna Buddhism, beginning in about 100 bce in southern or northern India. A whole literature arose (originally in Sanskrit) consecrated to what it termed the "perfection of wisdom" (prajñapāramitā ; lit., "the wisdom that has gone beyond"). The earliest Prajñapāramitā works were composed between 100 bce and 150 ce; from the fourth to the seventh centuries ce compendia and short versions were redacted under the influence of the Mādhyamika school; from the sixth century on, Tantrism also gained control of these texts and gave them ritualistic interpretations (to the extent even of introducing antinomian practices). As mentioned above, there are a number of parallels between the Buddhist and the early Jewish conceptions of wisdom. The Buddhist "wisdom books" (Conze, 1975) introduce a specifically new type of knowledge about redemption: an insight into the "emptiness" (śūnyatā ) of existence that promises deliverance. These teachings are presented in the form of dialogues between the Buddha and some of his disciples. The manner of presentation lends authority to the new teaching and gives it canonical status. Here the virtue (pāramitā ) of "insight" (prajñā, pañña ), perhaps under the influence of the South Indian mother goddess, is sometimes personified as a goddess of wisdom, Prajñapāramitā. In this form she is regarded as "mother" of all the Buddhas (buddhāmati, jināna mātā ) and bodhisattvas.

If a mother with many sons had fallen ill, They all, sad in mind, would busy themselves about her: Just so also the Buddhas in the world-systems in the ten directions Bring to mind this perfection of wisdom as their mother. The Saviours of the world who were in the past, and also those that are (just now) in the ten directions, Have issued from her, and so will the future ones be. She is the one who shows the world (for what it is), she is the genetrix, the mother of the Jinas, And she reveals the thought and action of other beings. (Conze, 1973, p. 31)

Prajñapāramitā is depicted iconographically with two, four, six, ten, or twelve arms. Her color is gold or white; her symbols are the lotus and a book (colored blue or red). She often resembles depictions of Mañjuśrī (the male personification of wisdom) or Sarasvatī (the Hindu goddess of learning, eloquence, and intelligence) or Avalokiteśvara, Tārā, and Cunda. To ordinary Buddhists she is a goddess who can be invoked and who bestows merit, well-being, and blessing. Buddhist theologians, however, see in her simply a "spiritual" manifestation of redemptive or enlightening ("bodhi -giving") wisdom, which contains and sustains all things and is called "mother of enlightenment." Here the very essence of Buddhist doctrine is manifested and personified. The various interpretations of this doctrine in the Mahāyāna schools (Mādhyamika, Yogācāra, Tantra) are also reflected in the figure of Prajñapāramitā and the literature about her. One of the best-known hymns to her was composed by Rāhulabhadra (c. 150 ce):

Homage to Thee, Perfect Wisdom, Boundless, and transcending thought! All Thy limbs are without blemish, Faultless those who Thee discern.… Teachers of the world, the Buddhas, Are Thine own compassionate sons; Then art Thou, O Blessed Lady, Grandam thus of beings all.… When as fearful Thou appearest Thou engender'st fear in fools; When benignly Thou appearest Comes assurance to the wise.… By all Buddhas, Single Buddhas, By Disciples courted, too, Thou the one path to salvation, There's no other verily.… By my praise of Perfect Wisdom All the merit I may rear, Let that make the world devoted To this wisdom without peer. (Conze, 1959, pp. 168–171)

The Tantric school produced magical incantations or formulas (mantras ) for Prajñapāramitā, which were given by the goddess herself. The recitation of these sayings has liberating power; it is also meritorious on behalf of others. In this form of Buddhism the figure of Wisdom unites in itself all aspects of religion, both in theory and in practice. In fact, Prajñapāramitā is probably its most notable expression.

China

Finally, I shall add a brief word on China, where, in contrast to India, wisdom has minimal connections with religion. In Confucianism it has an unambiguously ethico-moral character. We are reminded of the Greeks when we find wisdom consisting in the avoidance of extremes and the following of the mean. Chih ("wisdom") is one of the five cardinal virtues that characterize the Confucian "wise man" (chün-tzu ). It includes knowledge of human nature and society, a command of language, and a practical behavior that obeys the Confucian rules (li). "The sense of right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom (chih )" (Fung Yu-lan, 1952, vol. 1, p. 121). Every human being has the native ability to become wise and needs only instruction and practice, since in the prevailing Chinese view human nature is good (another point reminiscent of Greek thought). Confucianism nonetheless also offers the ideal of the "noble man" or "holy man" (sheng-jen ) who surpasses even the wise man, since he complies perfectly with all the principles (li), lives in harmony with nature and society, and thus is the peerless teacher of an age. The ancient meaning of wisdom as the practical management of life through knowledge of the world and human beings has probably found its most impressive development in China and has for thousands of years profoundly shaped the character of the people. Wisdom is embodied in behavior and can be acquired by practice; it then becomes a habitual attitude.

Bibliography

There is no monograph that completely covers the concepts of wisdom that are found among various peoples and cultures. Only A. R. Gordon's "Wisdom," in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, vol. 12 (Edinburgh, 1921), attempts a survey; the areas most fully studied and described are the ancient Near East (including Israel), Greek thought, and early Christianity. The following bibliography lists other articles and books that I have found helpful and that can serve as an introduction to the subject.

Burkert, Walter. Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. Translated by Edwin L. Minar, Jr. Cambridge, Mass., 1972.

Conze, Edward. Buddhist Scriptures. Harmondsworth, 1959.

Conze, Edward. The Prajñapāramitā Literature. The Hague, 1960.

Conze, Edward. Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies: Selected Essays. Columbia, S. C., 1968.

Conze, Edward, trans. The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines and Its Verse Summary. Bolinas, Calif., 1973.

Conze, Edward, trans. and ed. Buddhist Wisdom Books, Containing the Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra. London, 1975.

Conze, Edward, trans. The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom. Berkeley, 1975.

Dijk, Jan van. La sagesse suméro-accadienne. Leiden, 1953.

Fohrer, Georg, and Ulrich Wilcken. "Sophia." In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 7. Nashville, 1967.

Fung Yu-lan. A History of Chinese Philosophy. 2 vols. 2d ed. Translated by Derk Bodde. Princeton, 1952–1953.

Gese, Hartmut. "Weisheit." In Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3d ed., vol. 6. Tübingen, 1962.

Gladigow, Burkhard. Sophia und Kosmos. Hildesheim, 1965.

Küchler, Max. Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen. Freiburg, 1979.

Lambert, W. G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford, 1960.

Langdon, Stephen H. "Babylonian Wisdom." Babyloniaca (1923): 129–194.

Mack, Burton L. Logos und Sophia: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie in hellenistischen Judentum. Göttingen, 1973.

Noth, Martin, and D. Winton Thomas, eds. Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Leiden, 1955.

Rad, Gerhard von. Wisdom in Israel. Nashville, 1972.

Ringgren, Helmer. Word and Wisdom. Lund, 1947.

Rudolph, Kurt. "Sophia und Gnosis." In Altes Testament-Frühjudentum-Gnosis: Neue Studien zu "Gnosis und Bibel," edited by K.-W. Tröger, pp. 221–237. Berlin, 1980.

Sasson, Jack M., ed. Oriental Wisdom. Special issue of the Journal of the American Oriental Society 101, no. 1 (1981).

Shaked, Shaul, trans. The Wisdom of the Sasanian Sages: Dēnkard Book Six. Boulder, 1979.

Soden, Wolfram von. "Leistung und Grenze sumerischer und babylonischer Wissenschaft." Welt als Geschichte 2 (1936): 411–464, 509–557.

West, Edward W., trans. and ed. The Book of the Mainyô-i-khard (1871). Amsterdam, 1979.

Wilcken, Ulrich. Weisheit und Torheit. Tübingen, 1959.