WINTER
See CANAAN.
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Winter
(prop. , sethan, Song of Solomon 2, 11; but usually , chreph, which is strictly autumn, the season of ripeness; Gr. , the rainy season). In Palestine, part of autumn and the seasons of seed-time and cold, extending from the beginning of’ September to the beginning of March, were called winter (en. 8. 22; Psa 74:17; Zec 14:8; Jer 36:22). The cold: of winter is not usually very severe, though then north winds from the middle of December to the middle of February are exceedingly penetrating. Snow falls more or less but seldom lies upon the ground, except in tile mountains (Psalm 174:17). In shady places the ice will occasionally bear a man’s weight, but thaws as soon as the sun rises upon it. In the plain of Jericho the winter is more genial than the spring of northern countries, while in the mountainous country around Jerusalem it is often more inclement: than might be expected (Mat 24:20). In this season the most furious storms of hail are experienced all over the land; the brooks rise, and all their streams fill their channels, and thunder and lightning are frequent. Towards the end of January the fields become green, and there is every appearance of approaching spring. The last rains tall in the early part of April; it is still cold, but less so, and the spring may be said to have arrived (Song of Solomon 2, 11). SEE CALENDAR; SEE PALESTINE; SEE SEASON.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Winter
WINTER (, Mat 24:20, Mar 13:18, Joh 10:22).This is the time of cold and rain-storms. The modern Arab, name, esh-shitta, means literally the rain. It is the season in which the rain supply of the year falls; it lasts roughly for seven months, from October till April inclusive, thus including the part of the year which we call spring (see Summer). While in the deeper parts of the Jordan Valley it is never very cold, the raw air breeds many discomforts in the rainy season. On the higher lands, however, the cold is often intense, snow lying at timese.g. in Jerusalemto a depth of some inches. The rain moistens the soil, hard baked by the summer sun. In a land where the science of road-making is practically unknown, the paths go swiftly to mud, so that travel in winter is always toilsome, and not seldom perilous.
W. Ewing.
WISDOM
i.Use of the conception in Biblical history and literature.
A.As applied to a school of thought.
1.The wise men.
2.Their writings.
B.As applied to the Spirit of God.
1.Jewish hypostatization.
2.Christological development.
A. ii.NT use of the word .
1.In the Gospels.
2.In the Pauline Epistles.
3.In the Ep. of James and elsewhere.
iii.Use of word and concept in the discourses of Jesus.
1.In comparisons of His message with the Baptists.
2.To rebuke blasphemy against His work.
iv.Matthaean connexions of the two groups of sayings.
1.Wisdom sayings of Matthew 11.
2.Wisdom sayings of Matthew 12.
v.Lukan connexions of the two groups.
1.Luk 11:49-51 a Wisdom utterance.
2.Relation to context of Luke 7 = Matthew 11.
3.Connected discourse-elements of Lk.-Acts.
(a)Luk 12:13-34.
(b)Luke 16; Luk 18:9-14.
(c)Luk 11:1-13; Luk 18:1-8.
vi.The Wisdom utterances represent a special type of Gospel tradition.
1.Independent of Matthaean Logia.
2.Inseparable from narrative.
3.Employed in common Greek form by Mt. and Luke.
4.More fully and authentically present in Luke.
vii.Relation of this to narrative-elements of Synoptic tradition.
1.Dependence of Mark.
2.Relation to peculiar narrative-element of Luke.
viii.Conclusions as to proto-Lukan source.
B.ix.Wisdom speculation in the development of Christology.
1.The Wisdom doctrine of St. Paul as related
(a)to (Jewish) Stoicism.
(b)to Apocalyptics.
(c)to Mystery-religion.
2.The Johannine and Patristic Christology.
(a)Substitution of Greek terminology (Logos for Wisdom).
(b)Standpoint of the Fourth Evangelist.
(c)The Wisdom utterance Mat 11:25-30 the link between Synoptic and Johannine Christology.
Literature.
i. The Biblical conception.In Biblical language the term wisdom (OT hokhmh, LXX Septuagint and NT , rarely (Luk 1:17, Eph 1:8), or (Luk 2:47, Eph 3:4), is applied (A) to a human, (B) to a Divine attribute.
A. Under the former head is included.1. The type of thought illustrated in the school of religio-philosophical thinkers contemporary with and later than the prophets, rivalled and ultimately displaced by the scribes. Thus the designation of Mat 23:34, prophets and wise men and scribes, is seen to be Historically correct, as against the modified form of Luk 11:49 (prophets and apostles; cf. 1Th 2:15, Eph 2:20 etc.), the representatives of these schools of Jewish thought being regarded as commissioned by and endowed with the Divine Spirit. 2. In a derived sense the writings of these inspired men ( , applied by Hegesippus and Palestinian writers generally to the group Pr.-Wisd. of Sol.; see Eus. Historia Ecclesiastica iv. xxii. 8, Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers [ed. Schaff-Wace], with note by McGiffert), regarded as utterances of the Spirit of God: the Wisdom of God saith (Luk 11:49) = the Holy Ghost saith (Heb 3:7) = the Spirit (of apocalyptic prophecy) saith (1Ti 4:1, perhaps referring to Jannes and Jambres, 2Ti 3:8).
B. The designation Wisdom of God, or simply Wisdom, is sometimes applied to the Spirit of God as manifest in creation and redemption, in the illumination of the mind and regeneration of the soul.
1. In the Hokhmh, or Wisdom literature, this is the habitual designation of the Divine Spirit, especially conceived as manifesting the redeeming love of God, which goes forth to seek and save the erring (Wis 1:6; Wis 7:22-28). Personification of Wisdom (Job 28, Proverbs 8), under the later speculative influence of Stoic metaphysics, passes imperceptibly into hypostatization and a Logos-doctrine, cosmological as well as soteriological (Wisdom=the Metathron, Wis 9:4; Wis 9:10; cf. Sirach 24, Wis 7:24 f). In Philo the terms Wisdom and Logos are practically equivalent, the Stoic term naturally tending among Greek readers to displace the Hebrew. Contemporaneously, under the mythologizing influence exerted through apocalyptic literature, the redemptive mission of Wisdom (Wis 9:17 f.) develops into an unmistakable avatar doctrine, wherein Wisdom becomes incarnate, and dwells among men (Bar 3:37, cf. Oxyrh. Frgts. Log. iii.), or even descends to the underworld to visit all that sleep, and shine upon all that hope in the Lord (Sir 24:32 Lat.; cf. pseudo-Isaiah, ap. Iren. Hr. iii. xx. 4, and Eph 5:14). Rejected by men, she ascends again to her seat in heaven (Enoch xlii. 1),* [Note: The note of R. H. Charles on this passage of Enoch is too significant to be omitted: The praise of wisdom was a favourite theme. Wisdom was regarded as having her dwelling-place in heaven (lxxxiv. 3, Job 28:12-14; Job 28:20-24, Bar 3:29, Sir 24:4), and as coming to earth and desiring to make her abode with men Pro 1:20 ff., Pro 1:8 ff., Pro 9:1-10, Sir 24:7; but as men refused to receive her (cf. xciv. 5), she returned to heaven. But in the Messianic times she will return, and will be poured out as water in abundance, xlix. 1, and the thirsty will drink to the full of wisdom, xlvii. 1; she will be bestowed on the elect, v. 8, xci. 10; cf. Apoc. Bar. xliv. 14, 4 Ezra 8:62; and the spirit of wisdom will abide in the Messiah, the Elect One, xlix. 3. What is here said of the outpouring of the spirit of wisdom is parallel to Act 2:16 ff. of the spirit of prophecy (cf. Num 11:29) and to the agraphon: Et factum est cum ascendisset dominus de aqua, descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti, et requievit super eum, etc.] whence she returns to be poured out upon the elect in the Messianic age (xlix. 1). The mythologizing tendency was strongly reacted against by the scribes, especially in the period of Akiba, during the rivalry of Synagogue and Church in Palestine (a.d. 70135). On the Jewish side, from this time forward, all personifications of the Divine Wisdom were rigidly restricted in their application to the Mosaic Torah (Sir 24:23-27, Bar 4:1, Pirke Aboth, iii. 14, vi. 10). We even find later readings in Jewish texts altering hokhmh to trh ( to ). In general, after the schism of the Nazarenes, speculative thought (doctrine of the Merkabah) is rigorously suppressed.
2. On the Christian side Wisdom speculation continued to develop in both the cosmological and the soteriological directions, with the Pauline Epistles as a basis. In the Johannine literature the Greek term Logos is adopted, though the Wisdom doctrine itself continues Hebrew; but in the 2nd cent. Fathers, as in Philo, Wisdom and Logos are interchangeable and equivalent. Both designate the Spirit of God incarnate in Christ. The influence of mystery myths, already traceable in pre-Christian apocalypse, becomes more pronounced, Gnostic speculations becoming completely mythological. In these Wisdom ( , or Achamoth = hokhmh) is the feminine or passive principle in the scheme of redemption, the active. The present discussion will confine itself to the NT use of the two conceptions of wisdom: (A) as the inspired message of God through the wise men (hkhmm); (B) as the Divine Spirit itself, resident in Jesus, and manifested in His life as well as in His teaching. For the history of Wisdom as the Hebrew philosophy, and as a hypostasis equivalent to the Stoic Logos, the reader is referred to the artt. Wisdom, Wisdom Literature, Wisdom, Book of, in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible and in the Encyc. Biblica.
ii. NT use.1. A study of the use of the word , and its cognates in the Gospels, shows it to be, in some sense, distinctive of the Lukan writings, in which Jesus teaching is presented primarily under this aspect of wisdom of God, many examples having the characteristic forms of the Hokhmh (Wisdom) literature (see Briggs, Expos. Times, viii., ix. [189798] four articles on The Wisdom of Jesus the Messiah). The characteristic strophic form is apparent also in some discourse-material found only in Mt. (e.g. Mat 5:21 f., Mat 5:27 f., Mat 5:31 f., Mat 5:33 f., Mat 5:38 f., Mat 6:2-6; Mat 6:16-18), but is disarranged by additions in the canonical form of this Gospel. The word occurs but once in Mk. (Mar 6:2 = Mat 13:54), and is applied, as in Luk 2:40; Luk 2:52 and the series cited below, to Jesus endowment with the Spirit. It occurs twice in Mt. (Mat 11:19; Mat 12:42), both occurrences being in passages verbally identical with Lk., and in a less original form. In Lk.-Acts it occurs 10 times; but the Lukan use is specially noteworthy, because endowment with the Spirit of God is here habitually spoken of, whether in the case of Jesus, of His forerunners, or of His successors, as the of wisdom. So of Jesus (Luk 2:40; Luk 2:52; cf. Luk 2:47 and Luk 4:22 ), of the endowment of the Twelve with the Spirit (Luk 21:15), of the Seven (Act 6:3), of Stephen (Act 6:10), of Joseph (Act 7:10), of Moses (Act 7:22). In the Fourth Gospel the conception of the endowment of Jesus with the spirit of wisdom is supplanted by that of an incarnation of the Logos. The word and its cognates are wholly wanting.
2. With this Gospel use should be compared that of the NT elsewhere. In the Pauline Epistles the word occurs 16 times in the passage 1Co 1:17 to 1Co 3:19, wherein St. Paul contrasts the wisdom of God, which endows those who have the mind of Christ with the wisdom of this world; and 9 times in the twin Epistles (Eph.-Col.), written to oppose a philosophy and vain deceit (Eph 4:14 wiles of error) by means of the Divine gift of a spirit of wisdom and understanding in the mystery of the Divine will. It is used by St. Paul in but three other instances, two of which (1Co 12:8, 2Co 1:12) are directly related to the group first mentioned, while the third occurs in the doxology Rom 11:33. The of wisdom claimed by St. Paul (1Co 1:17 to 1Co 2:16, Eph 3:3-11, cf. 1Co 12:8) is conceded to his letters in 2Pe 3:15.
3. The only other NT employments of the word, or of the connected-group of ideas, are in James and the Apocalypse. In Jam 1:5; Jam 3:13; Jam 3:15; Jam 3:17 wisdom is more exclusively practical and ethical, but is emphatically a Divine endowment. The conception of the wisdom which cometh from above (i.e. the Divine Spirit, given to all that ask, Jam 1:5), manifested in works of love, is contrasted with wisdom of the tongue in James 3. The former is the fundamental characteristic of the just or righteous man ( ), a use which agrees closely with that of Sirach and the OT Wisdom literature. Cf. Luk 1:17 , and Luk 16:8 . In the Apocalypse wisdom is an attribute of God in the doxologies Luk 5:12, Luk 7:12 (cf. Rom 11:33); otherwise it is referred to only as an endowment like that of Joseph (Gen 41:38 f.) and Daniel (Dan 5:14), requisite to solve riddles (Rev 13:18; Rev 17:9). The usage and conception of the Third Evangelist appear thus to stand midway between that of St. James and of St. Paul, with traces of the same use in certain parts of Mt. and Mark.
iii. Use in the discourses of Jesus.The discourses of Jesus furnish a meagre but trustworthy starting-point for a history of the term in its Christological development. Among these discourses we cannot venture to reckon the saying Luk 21:15 (= Luk 12:11 = Mat 10:19 f. = Mar 13:11 = Joh 15:26 f.), since the parallels make it probable that (cf. Luk 2:47 prudentiam el os, cod. e.) is only the characteristic Lukan mode of expressing the promise of the Paraclete. All other occurrences of the word or connected idea in the discourses stand more or less closely related with one of two incidents: (1) Jesus denunciation of the faithless generation which rejected for opposite reasons both the Baptists mission and His own (Matthew 11), or (2) His denunciation of the scribes who blasphemed the Spirit of God whereby He wrought, demanding a sign from heaven (Mat 12:22-45). These discourses are variously distributed in our First and Third Gospels (Mat 11:2-30; Mat 12:22-45; Mat 21:28-32; Mat 23:34-38 and Luk 7:18-35; Luk 10:13-15; Luk 10:21 f., Luk 11:24-26; Luk 11:29-32; Luk 11:49-51), but have in common a close connexion in thought and a resemblance of language in exceptional degree as between the two canonical reporters. In these two groups of discourses, therefore, must be found, if anywhere, the basis in Jesus own utterances for the subsequent application in Christology of the conception of the Divine Wisdom.
iv. Matthaean Connexions of the two Groups of Sayings.1. The Matthaean context of group (1) starts from the question of Johns disciples. This is made the occasion by Jesus of a comparison of unrepentant Israel to children who are pleased with neither the mournful nor the gay melodies of their playmates. His hearers had been displeased at the asceticism of John, and are equally so with the genial life of the Friend of publicans and sinners. As against this rejection by the self-righteous of the message of repentance and forgiveness, Wisdoms children (here those who had repented at the preaching of John, cf. Luk 21:31 f., Luk 7:29 f.) afford the justification of her methods (Mat 11:2-19). In Mt. the discourse continues with the denunciation of the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, a paragraph which is perhaps accountable for the reading . in some Manuscripts for in Matthew 11; Matthew 19. These verses (Mat 11:20-24) are otherwise placed by Lk.; but those which follow (Mat 11:25-27 = Luk 10:21 f.) again relate to the wisdom of Jesus which is delivered to Him ( ) by His Father (in contrast with the of the scribes, Mar 7:13), and, though hid from the wise, is revealed to the little ones. This in turn introduces in Mat 11:28-30 an invitation closely resembling those placed in the mouth of the Divine Wisdom in the literature of this class (cf. Sir 51:26 ff; Sir 6:28 and Oxyrhynchus Log. iii. [iv.]). This closes the chapter and the discourse.
2. In Mat 12:38-45 substantially the same subject is resumed, but it is now propos of the blasphemy of the scribes against the Holy Spirit in ascribing Jesus exorcisms to Beelzebub (Mat 12:22-37), the intervening material (Mat 12:1-21) comprising the two Sabbath incidents of Mar 2:23 to Mar 3:6. In this further denunciation, not of the scribes but still of this evil and adulterous generation, Jesus declares that it will fare worse than the Ninevites; for, while these repented at the warning of Jonah, this generation has rejected a greater warning (i.e. the Baptists; cf. Mar 11:11-14 and Bacon, Sermon on the Mount, App. C. iv. v. pp. 216231). It is condemned also by the Queen of the South, because she came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, whereas this generation has rejected a more gracious appeal ( = a greater matter, i.e. Jesus message of forgiveness conceived as the wisdom of God). A concluding parable (Mat 12:43-45 = Luk 11:24-26) likens this evil generation, with its Pharisaic mania purifica, to a house swept and garnished which becomes the abode of demons, because inhospitable to the Spirit of God. It is highly noteworthy that in both groups the condemnation is uttered by Jesus for rejection of the Spirit of God, which in the case of the discourse anent the Baptist is assumed to be manifest in Jesus message of forgiveness, in the case of the blasphemy of the scribes in His healing power. The significance of the use of the term wisdom in both cases (Mat 11:19; Mat 12:42) for the gracious and winning appeal of Gods redeeming, forgiving love, is made more apparent by the contrast in both instances with the Baptists harsher message of warning against the wrath to come. This is manifest from the figures of wailing versus piping, mourning versus dancing, fasting versus feasting, preaching of Jonah versus wisdom of Solomon.
v. Lukan connexions of the two groups.A further discourse, correctly connected in Luk 11:49-51 with group (2) (in Mat 23:34 ff. incorrectly attached to Mar 12:38-40 = Mat 23:1-12) carries to its logical conclusion the denunciation of the scribes who had blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Speaking now directly in the name of the wisdom of God (Luk 11:49), Jesus predicts their impending fate, and in the Matthaean form (which properly includes the pathetic appeal to Jerusalem, separated from it in Lk. [Mat 23:37-39 = Luk 13:34 f.]), the forsaking of your house by Gods Spirit. Not only have we throughout this context the characteristic forms and modes of expression of the Wisdom literature, but the final warning is expressly introduced as an utterance of the wisdom of God ( ), by which should be understood not the specific title of an individual writing of this literary category, but the entire canon of Wisdom writings, inclusive of the lost work from which the extract is made. The following considerations will make this clear:
1. The continuation of the previous line of thought is apparent from the allusion to the fate of Gods messengers (with Mat 23:34-37 = Luk 11:49-51; Luk 13:34 f. cf. Mat 12:39 ff. = Luk 11:29 ff.), to the vain plea of the Spirit [Wisdom] (with Mat 23:37-39 = Luk 13:34 f., cf. Mat 12:38-42 = Luk 11:29-32), and to the house left desolate (with Mat 23:38 f = Luk 13:35, cf. Mat 12:43-45 = Luk 11:24-36). Many considerations, on the other hand, make it probable that Mat 23:34-39 (= Luk 11:49-51; Luk 13:34 f.), if not more, is really drawn from some lost Wisdom writing, (a) The sending of prophets and wise men and scribes (hkhmim and sophrim) is something which cannot be ascribed to Jesus (Mt.) but only to the Divine Spirit (Wisdom). (b) The adoption of the figure of Psa 36:7; Psa 91:4, Isa 31:5, Deu 32:11 is appropriate only to the Divine Spirit, which broods over Jerusalem; it is actually so applied in 2Es 1:30. It will appear to many inappropriate if made an utterance of Jesus personally. The same may be said in less degree of the threat of the forsaking of the house (cf. Jer 12:7; Jer 22:5. Josephus preserves a kindred legend of voices in the Temple saying, Let us remove hence, BJ vi. v. 3). (c) The whole context Mat 23:34-39 reappears in paraphrase in 2Es 1:28-37, which, though late and Christianized, preserves the material in the form of an utterance of the Lord Almighty. (d) Mat 23:35 contains, as some think, an anachronistic reference to the murder of Zechariah the son of Baruch, shortly before the siege of Jerusalem (Josephus BJ iv. v. 4). This consideration, however, may be disregarded, as the reference may also be explained as a confusion of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (2Ch 24:20-22) with the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah (Zec 1:1).
2. Luk 7:1 to Luk 8:3 presents a context interconnected by the thought fundamental to the saying Mat 11:16-19the Friend of publicans and sinnersthe narrative-material with the exception of Mat 7:1-10 = Mat 8:5 to Mat 10:13 being peculiar to Luke. The discourse and narrative-material have the same bearing, and the former includes the nucleus of the wisdom sayings of Matthew 11.
It thus appears that in the two groups of discourse-material principally represented in Matthew 11, 12 and Luke 7, 11 we have inextricably intermingled (1) sayings of Jesus wherein His own gracious mission was set over against the harsher warning of the Baptist as the message of the Divine Wisdom; and (2) extracts in defence of His beneficent works, from the actual Wisdom literature, these extracts having been embodied along with His words of denunciation of the scribes, either by Himself or in the subsequent development of Evangelic tradition. To draw the line with precision between authentic utterances of Jesus, and material subsequently adapted from the Wisdom literature because pronounced by the wisdom of God (Mat 11:28-30?) surpasses the powers of criticism; but the endeavour is the more needless because the really significant fact is that Jesus actual teaching, at least in the form given it by the source here employed in common by Mt. and Lk., was so closely allied to the ideas of this Wisdom literature as to permit of intermingling at an extremely early date. A later example of the process of adaptation is furnished by the Oxyrhynchus papyrus which puts in the mouth of Jesus the characteristic Wisdom utterance: I stood in the midst of the world, and in the flesh was I seen of them (cf. Bar 3:8), and I found all men drunken, and none found I athirst among them, and my soul grieveth over the sons of men because they are blind in their heart (Oxyrh. Log. III.).
3. Other elements of discourse-material from the Third Gospel and Acts may be clearly traced to a source of the same Wisdom type, if not the same composition, (a) In particular, the wisdom of Solomon, especially as exhibited in the hedonistic Epicureanism of Ecclesiastes, is pointedly contrasted with a higher wisdom in the great discourse on the true riches of Luk 12:13-34, part of which is taken up in Mat 6:19-34. The polemic against Ecclesiastes 2 in Mat 12:13-21 becomes tenfold more pointed as the discourse proceeds to compare the beauty of the lilies and the provision of the ravens which have neither store-chamber nor barn (cf. Mat 12:18) with Solomon in all his glory (cf. Ecc 1:12-18; Ecc 2:1-25). The subject of the discourse (wherein life consists, Mat 12:15; Mat 12:22 f.) is as distinctive of Hebrew Wisdom literature as the form and phraseology.
(b) To the same original context must be reckoned the greater part of Luke 16, the material of which is peculiar to Luke. The wisdom of the unrighteous steward in the use of the mammon of unrighteousness is a subject manifestly in close relation to the use of riches commended in Luk 12:13-34, the affinity extending even to the phraseology (with Luk 16:9 riches that fail cf. Luk 12:33 treasure that faileth not). The combination of the two, therefore, in Mat 6:19-34, propos of the heavenly recompense (Mat 6:1; Mat 6:4; Mat 6:18), probably reflects a real connexion of Luk 12:13-34 with Luk 16:1-13 in the source.
Similar reasoning, based partly on the phraseology (cf. Luk 16:15 with Luk 18:14) partly on the subject-matter, connects the rest of Luke 16 (exc. v. Luk 16:17-18) with Luk 18:9-14 (Luk 19:11-27?). The two companion parables Luk 16:19-25 (Luk 16:26-31 seem to be a later addendum) and Luk 18:9-14 exemplify the principle laid down in Luk 16:15, while Luk 16:16 = Mat 11:12-14 links the whole with Luk 7:29 f. The whole group of teachings and parables on worldly conditions is thus seen to have a common occasion and bearing, a common spirit, and a common point of view not elsewhere shown in the Gospels, but closely resembling the social teaching of James (cf. Luk 1:9-11, Luk 2:1-9, Luk 4:2 f., Luk 4:6; Luk 4:10; Luk 4:13 f., Luk 5:1-6).
(c) A kindred subject having a similar development in Lk., but otherwise only scantily represented in the Gospels, is that of dependence on the Divine bounty in answer to prayer (Luk 11:1-13), which can hardly be dissociated from the companion parables (Luk 11:5-8 and Luk 18:1-8). The bare and wholly disconnected fragment taken up in Mat 7:7-11 is as inadequate to represent this exquisite group as is Mat 6:19-34 if bereft of the parables on the Foolish Rich Man and the Shrewd Steward. Once more, it is the Ep. of James that supplies an echo of the same spirit (cf. Mat 1:5-8; Mat 1:17, Mat 4:2 f., Mat 5:13-18).
It is clear that the method here applied may be extended to much of the special discourse-material of Lk., including perhaps some elements of Acts (on Solomon in Act 7:44-50 see Yale Bicentennial Contributions, 1901, p. 271 f.). It is sufficent for the present to indicate that a large element of our Third Gospel is thus characterized.
vi. Wisdom utterances represent a special type of Gospel traditions.The question of the relation of the Wisdom discourses to the recognized Gospel sources is one which inevitably suggests itself as soon as the fact is recognized that they are characterized by a peculiar and distinctive point of view. It becomes our duty, accordingly, to trace at least the outline of an answer.
1. The discourse-material of Matthew 11-12 falls outside the pentad characterized by the colophon … already discussed in art. Logia.
2. Besides being separated by narrative-material from these groups, Matthew 11-12 differ from them in the fact of their relation to the narrative, from which they are inseparable, and in the degree of similarity in their language to the Lukan parallels. As against the groups of logia which have not, and from their character do not require, a narrative setting, the discourse of Matthew 11 not only relates the coming of the Baptists disciples, but presupposes an account of Jesus works of healing, and even requires us to suppose the reader somewhere informed of what had given rise to the taunt Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. The same applies to the discourse in defence of Jesus exorcism by the Spirit of God. This indispensable narrative-element is always supplied more fully and in better connexion by Lk., in some cases by Lk. alone (Luk 11:1 ff; Luk 12:13-21).
3. The similarity of language to the Lukan parallels is here very exceptional, reaching the degree of verbal identity for whole sentences, and positively requiring the use of the same written Greek source.
4. This marked difference in the degree of resemblance serves to connect other non-Markan elements of Mt., such as Mat 3:1 to Mat 4:11; Mat 8:5-13; Mat 8:18-22, which are again found to fall outside the Matthaean pentad, to differ in content and point of view from the Logian source, and to be at once more complete and for the most part more authentic in detail in Luke than in Matthew. Linguistic peculiarities in several instances prove the dependence of Mt. in these portions. Thus is used by Lk. 68 times against 3 (5?) employments of . The latter form on the contrary is invariably employed in Mt., Mk., and Jn., except thrice in Mat 23:37 = Luk 13:34. is systematically changed by Mt. to . There are but four exceptions: Mat 19:24 (= Mar 10:25) and Mat 12:28; Mat 21:31; Mat 21:43 (cf. Luk 7:29; Luk 11:20).
vii. Relation to narrative-elements of Synoptic tradition.Although our First and to a less extent our Third Evangelist both derive the main framework of their narrative from our Second, this Second itself is not wanting in evidences of dependence on the source to which we have traced the Wisdom chapters of Mt. and Luke.
1. This relation appears in the description of the Baptist as Elias (Mar 1:2; Mar 1:5-6;* [Note: Note especially the rare form found only in Luk 7:33-34; Luk 10:7; Luk 22:30. In all the other 55 occurrences of the verb in the NT, including 10 in Mark , 9 of Lk.s own, the regular form is used.] cf. Luk 7:24 f., Luk 7:33, Mat 11:14, 2Ki 1:8); of the Temptation (Mar 1:13, the and coming from Psa 91:11-13 quoted in Luk 4:10 f.); of Jesus as eating and drinking while the disciples of the Baptist were fasting, and as a friend of publicans and sinners (Mar 2:18-22; Mar 2:13-17; cf. Luk 7:33 f.); of the blasphemy of the scribes (Mar 3:22-35; cf. Luk 11:14-28), and perhaps of the Transfiguration (Mar 9:2-13; cf. Luk 9:28-36). In all these passages of Mk. and in other loosely connected material (Mar 9:36-48 = Luk 9:49 f., Luk 12:41-44 = Luk 24:1-4) the context of Lk. gives more or less conclusive evidence of priority. It is but reasonable to suppose that other Markan narratives such as Mar 6:1-6 may also have been derived hence, though the present Lukan form has been affected by Mk.
2. Of the connexion of the narrative-elements peculiar to Lk. with the source thus characterized it is hardly needful to speak. The common point of view of this material, presenting Jesus as the friend and champion of the lowly, from His childhood in the manger, welcomed by shepherds, to His acceptance by the thief on the cross, is well known. Nor can such narratives as that of the repentant harlot (Luk 7:36-50) be separated without violence from the discourse context. It is only in Mt. and Mk. that Luk 7:1-10; Luk 21:1-4 find themselves on a foreign soil.
viii. Conclusions as to proto-Lukan source.Admitting the precarious character of all attempts at extricating the Synoptic sources, and the probable development of the Antiochian (?) tradition between the period of its employment by Mk. and Mt. and its ultimate incorporation by Lk., enough remains to justify the following inference. A type of Gospel tradition grew up (at Antioch?) intermediate between those to which tradition attaches the names respectively of Matthew and John, and containing the . traditionally ascribed to the preaching of Peter. The Matthaean tradition is especially connected both by the unanimous testimony of antiquity and by internal evidence with Jerusalem. It takes as its method the agglutination of the logia of Jesus into a five-fold new Torah, as commandments given by the Lord to the faith. This agrees with the legalistic tendencies of the Palestinian Church and the methods of the Synagogue as illustrated, e.g., in the Pirke Aboth (cf. the Oxyrhynchus Logia). Besides the halachic type of Gospel tradition the earliest testimony recognizes a haggadic, of which Peter is the authoritative source. It seems to have had two branches, the earlier (Mk.) connected by tradition and internal evidences with Rome, the later (Jn.) with Ephesus, both almost as wholly preoccupied with the doctrine of the Person of Christ as the Pauline Epistles, and appealing to the drama of the Ministry and Passion for proof of the Divine sonship of Jesus. In the earlier (Mk.), connexion with the Petrine tradition is still close. In the later (Jn.), Pauline Logos-doctrine wholly dominates. Midway between these two types of Gospel tradition, the Hebrew and the Graeco-Roman, is developed that which tradition credibly associates with the name of Luke at Antioch. Combining both sayings and doings ( , Act 1:1) in juster proportion than Mk., it finds in the history, as exhibited in both elements, a manifestation of the Spirit of God in terms of the Jewish Wisdom-doctrine. As our First canonical Evangelist presents as the opening scene of the ministry the new Lawgiver on the Mount of Beatitudes, so our Third presents the scene in the synagogue of Nazareth where the words of grace uttered by the bearer of the Spirit of the Lord God are rejected by His own people, the tragedy of the Divine Wisdom. The theme is constant, but is developed alike in message of grace and deed of mercy. The whole career of Jesus is a manifestation of the power of God and the wisdom of God. Analysis of the sources of canonical Lk.-Acts reveals no difference in this fundamental point of view. From the beginning, as in the 5th cent., the Antioch school is historical, and its historical sources admittedly include, in Acts, if not in the Gospel, the oldest narrative of the NT. By the standard of internal evidence its tradition is more markedly Petrine than Mk.; its Christology roots itself, like the Pauline, but with less of the Hellenic speculative development, in that broadest, most humanitarian, most tolerant school of Hebrew thought, the followers and exponents of all-virtuous Wisdom.
ix. Wisdom speculation in the development of Christology.The conception of Wisdom as affecting Synoptic tradition involves such literary analysis of the source as the foregoing. As affecting the doctrine of the Person of Christ it involves at least a passing glance at the Pauline Christology, the link between Synoptic and Johannine doctrine.
1. The Wisdom-doctrine of St. Paul stands in unmistakably close relation, as regards its antecedents, with the Wisdom literature; and, as respects its subsequent development, with the Johan-nine Logos-doctrine. St. Pauls indebtedness to Stoic philosophy and ethics is set forth by no less a master than Lightfoot (St. Paul and Seneca in Com. on Phil. [Note: Philistine.] ). Recent demonstrations of his much more extensive and direct dependence on the Wisdom literature, especially the Book of Wisdom (Internat. Crit. Com. on Romans, by Sanday and Headlam, p. 51; cf. Grafe, Das Verhltniss der paulinischen Schriften zur Sapientia Salomonis in Th. Abh. C. v. Weizscker gewidmet), should by now have made it plain that. Stoicism comes to St. Paul mainly through Jewish channels. Again, since it is certain that St. Paul both by temperament and by experience was more apocalyptist than scribe, it should not have been overlooked that he has advanced, however briefly, his own decision on the moot point, whether the complete manifestation of the Divine Wisdom is simply the Torah of Moses (so the scribes on the basis of Deu 4:6-8), or whether it is the living Spirit of God sent forth in human form. Rom 10:4-8 and Bar 3:9 to Bar 4:1 (especially Bar 3:29 f.) contain contemporary and rival interpretations of Deu 30:12; Deu 30:3. By St. Pauls interpretation the word (of revelation) is nothing more or less than Christ as pre-existent spirit, the same Wisdom which, because she was the artificer of all things, passing into the soul of Solomon gave him an unerring knowledge of the things that are, to know the constitution of the world, etc. (Wis 7:17-22), the same mind of Christ by possession of which Christians have similar knowledge of the purposes of the Creator, just as a mans own consciousness gives him knowledge of his private designs (1Co 2:6-16; see Mystery). Definite identification is thus made by St. Paul in this and many other passages between the Divine Spirit of Wisdom, through which, according to Wisdom, God created the world, and the pre-existent Christ. Even the avatar doctrine of the descent and ascent of Wisdom (see references above, i. 1) is unmistakably adopted by St. Paul partly in opposition to, partly in rivalry with, the widespread conceptions of mystery religion (see Mystery). But just as a study of the Pauline ethics will show that its Stoic elements have been subsumed under the Christian principle of altruistic service (Eph 5:1 f., Php 2:1-13), so it should be recognized that the Pauline Logos doctrine, while clearly incorporating in Eph 4:4-16 a quasi-mythological interpretation of Psa 68:18, rests upon an authentic teaching of Jesus. According to St. Paul, Psalms 68 sets forth the descent, conflict with the hostile powers, triumph and ascent of the Divine Spirit (cf. Col 2:15, 1Pe 3:19) after releasing the captives of Death (cf. 1Co 15:26 f). But Eph 4:8-10, when compared with the earlier and later related passages concerning the avatar of Wisdom (Bacon, Story of St. Paul, p. 316 ff.), will be seen in some sense to rest upon the parable of Jesus concerning the spoiling of the Strong Man armed, by the Stronger than he (i.e. the Spirit of God operative in Jesus, Mat 12:28). We find it, in fact, habitually applied in this sense by the Fathers (Apollinaris, frag. 2 in Pasch. Chron.; Heads against Caius, vii.; cf. Hnydekoper, Works, vol. ii., Christs Mission to the Underworld). Thus the Pauline Wisdom-or Logos-doctrine of a pre-existent, spiritual Christ is firmly rooted in the authentic teaching of Jesus Himself. To Jesus also the power of God and the wisdom of God, were exhibited in His own mighty works and God-given teaching, and were a sign to His generation (Mat 11:2-24; Mat 12:38-42; cf. 1Co 1:17 to 1Co 2:16).
2. Johannine and Patristic Christology.(a) It matters little that after St. Paul the Wisdom doctrine should have been rebaptized by the Greek title of Logos, perhaps under the influence of Philo, perhaps as a concession to a Greek-speaking Church. Even in the Fourth Gospel the basic conception remains Hebrew and Pauline. Sanday as a student of Johannine thought, Sabatier as a student of Pauline, concur in admitting the identity of doctrine under the diverse terminology.
(b) In the Fourth Gospel the standpoint of the Evangelist is purely and simply the theological. He depicts the self-manifestation of the Divine Wisdom or Logos as incarnate in Jesus by word and deed. Her dwelling among men (Joh 1:10-14; cf. Enoch 42:2), rejection and apotheosis (Joh 20:17) is his theme. It is characteristic that here, as in the Wisdom literature in general, Wisdom is made to praise herself (Sir 24:1). The incarnate Logos preaches Himself; His seven parables are seven I ams, His seven mighty works manifest His own glory (Joh 2:11). In Joh 7:38 Jesus even quotes again an unknown scripture which by all analogy is drawn from the Wisdom literature (cf. Sir 24:30 f. [applied in Sir 24:23-29, by analogy with five rivers, to the five books of the Torah], Enoch 48:1, 49:1, and for Rabbinic interpretation in the scribal sense, Emek Hammelcch, 196a, on Isa 12:3, The waters are nothing else than the Torah, and the waters of salvation nothing else than the Torah of Messiah, Weber, Lehrc d. Talm. [Note: Talmud.] p. 360 f.; cf. also 1Co 10:4 and Oxyrh. Log. iii.).
(c) The Wisdom utterance Mat 11:25 ff. may be regarded as marking the transition-point between the Synoptic and Johannine representations of Jesus teaching. Not its doctrine alone, nor its mysticism, paralleling 1 Corinthians 2 (see Mystery), but the very form of its utterance is thus seen to be characteristic; for the Wisdom of God habitually speaks in the first person. Herein the discourses of the Fourth Gospel are as close to the spirit of the Wisdom literature as its Logos-doctrine is close to the Wisdom-doctrine of St. Paul. In the development of Gospel literature the presentation of Jesus career and teaching as the manifestation of the Divine Wisdom takes a place analogous to that of the Wisdom-doctrine of St. Paul in the development of Christology.
Literature.On the Wisdom hypostasis see, in addition to the works cited above, Bousset, Religion des Judenthums 2, p. 394 ff.; Brandt, Evangelische Geschichte., pp. 537, 561 f., 576; J. Drummond, Philo Judus, ii. p. 201 ff.; Aall, Gesch d.Logosidee, i. p. 204 f. On Hebrew Wisdom literature: Cheyne, Job and Solomon, or the Wisdom of the OT, 1887. On the literary forms: Norden, Antike Kunstprosa; Wilke, Dieneutest. Rhetorik; Moffatt, Historical New Test, 2 pp. xx, 704. On the influence of the Hokhmah literature on the gospel: F. C. Porter, Messages of the Apocalyptic Writers, 1905, p. 19. On the discourses of the Third Gospel: Bacon, The Sermon on the Mount, 1900, Appendix C. On Mat 23:34-39, D. F. Strauss, Jesu Weheruf ber Jerusalem und die in Ztschr. wiss. Theol. vi. (1863), pp. 8493; Loman, Th. Tijdschr. i. pp. 550560.
B. W. Bacon.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Winter
winter (, horeph, from , haraph, to inundate, overflow): The rainy season, also the autumn harvest season (Gen 8:22; Psa 74:17; Zec 14:8). It is also the time of cold (Jer 36:22; Amo 3:15). The verb to winter occurs in Isa 18:6. Sethaw () has the same meaning as horeph (Son 2:11). , cheimon, corresponds to horeph as the rainy season, and the verb , paracheimazo, signifies to pass the winter (Act 27:12), the noun from which is , paracheimasa (same place). See SEASONS.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Winter
[PALESTINE]
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Winter
See SEASONS.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Winter
Annual return of, shall never cease
Gen 8:22
Plowing in, in Canaan
Pro 20:4
Rainy season in, in Canaan
Son 2:11
Shipping suspended in, on the Mediterranean Sea
Act 27:12; Act 28:11
Paul remains one winter at Nicopolis
Tit 3:12
Summer and winter houses
Jer 36:22; Amo 3:15 Meteorology and Celestial Phenomena
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Winter
Winter. In Palestine, part of autumn and the seasons of seed-time and cold, extending from the beginning of September to the beginning of March, were called “winter.” Gen 8:22; Psa 74:17; Zec 14:8; Jer 36:22. The cold of winter is not usually very severe, though the north winds, from the middle of December to the middle of February, are sharp. Snow falls more or less, but seldom lies upon the ground except in the mountains. Psa 147:17. In shady places the ice will occasionally bear a man’s weight, but thaws as soon as the sun rises upon it. In the early part of April the spring may be said to have arrived. Son 2:11.
Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible
WINTER
the season
Son 2:11; Mat 24:20; Joh 10:22; 2Ti 4:21
Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible
Winter
Son 2:11 (c) We may use this type as a picture of the long life of hardship, sorrow, darkness and difficulty which one may live on this earth. In the case of the Christian this time is followed by GOD’s blessing, care and recovery, both in the millennium, in Heaven, or in the individual experience here on earth.
Joh 10:22 (c) We may use this as a picture of the cold, repelling and unhappy atmosphere which exists outside the house of GOD, and outside the fellowship of GOD’s people.