1803.] 
For the Monthly Magazine. 
WHO WROTE THE WISDOM ?. 
(Continued from our laff.) 
-E it remarked that the Platonic epithet 
0 Sinasos, the ju/t ove, which is applied 
to Jefus inthe Wifdom, (IT. 18), is alrealy 
in the mouth of Peter (A&ts TIT. 14) at 
a very early period indeed of his miniftry. 
The concluding part of Stephen’s dying 
fpeech, (Aéts VIT. 52—56) and efpectally 
the finely-imagined vifion of his perora- 
tion, are plainly derived from the ninth 
chapter of the Wifdom. ‘This book 
therefore wandered already at that rathe 
time among the lettered Chriflians of Je- 
rufalem ; fo that the account of the ¢ru- 
cifixion contained in the fecond chapter 
of the Wildom (v. r1—21r) moft be the 
earlieft extant allufion to that traufaGtion, 
and prior even to the account:in Mark’s 
Gofpel. 
John was the. fon of Zebedee and Sa- 
lome, anda younger brother of the James, 
whom Herod Agrippa flew. He became, 
after the death of Jefus, very intimate 
with Peter, and, like-him, was (Acts IV. 
13) deficient in edweation 5 in fuch minds, 
which cannot eftimate the limits of human 
intellect, the flights of eloquence often pafs 
for the affertions of information; the allego- 
ries of therhapfodift for the communications 
of the epopt. Thus from the Wifdom (IX. 
9) may eafily derive the credalous intro- 
duétion to John’s Gofpel. This Gofpel 
feems to have been written with the view 
of preferving thofe anecdotes of Jefus; 
which had efcaped or had been curtorily 
mentioned by Peter ; and to have been 
_ written ata time when the hero of the 
narrative was become in the writer’s mind 
a far more extraordinary and wonderful 
perfonage than he had appeared’ during 
actual acquaintance. Every little circum- 
ftance is brought out with complacence, 
which ought feemingly tohave betrayed 
his then unperceived fuperiority of na- 
ture to other mens The humble friend 
is become the attached worthipper.; and 
feeks the confolation for remembered in- 
‘feriority in the opinion that intelligence of 
-@ higher fphere had animated the bring 
t 
1 
i 
did and bore. 
which deigned to feleét him as a compa- 
pion, This progrefs of veneration im- 
plies time; and would naturally be fa- 
voured by, and refult from, fhe growing 
reputation of all that Jefus taught and 
John cannot have finithed 
his Gofpel until after the death of Peter, 
(John XXI. 19) who was expe&ing to 
fuffer at the time of writing his fecond 
Epittle (2 Peter I. 14), and who poffibly 
Montuiy Maa, No.107. 
~ 
Who wrote ee Wifdom 2 
$05 
fuffered about the year 58, and in confe- 
quence of thofe difturbances at Cefarea, 
where he refided much, which are men- 
tioned by Jolephus in the Hiftory (book 
2. ch.13) ofthe Jewifh War.. The Gol- 
pel of John may then with fome proba- 
bility be dated as early as the year 60, 
Prior to this Gofpel is the Firtt Epittle 
General, fays Michaelis; becaule the 
Gofpel refutes with reafons thofe opinions 
againit which the Epiftle only protetis, 
and it would be_ufelets to enter a _proteit 
if there had already exifted a refutation. 
Still the paflage (1 John IV, 14) and the 
previous pafiage (1.5) feem to intimate 
fome prior publication, which cannot 
well be. other> than the fourth Gofpel. 
As Paul accompanies his Epittle to the 
Coloffians with a private letter for Phile- 
mon, fo John accompanies bis General 
Epiftle with two private letters called his 
Second and Third Epiftles. This Second 
Epiftle is apparently addreff-d to the 
mother-of Jefus. The peculiar relation 
in which John food to her, the appropriate 
title ** chofen lady,” the various adapted 
allufions (v. 1,4, §—13) and the tradi- 
tion preferved-in an old Latin verfion that 
it was addreffed to ‘he Parthians, an error 
originable in a mifinterpretation of the 
Greek title of the Virgin, al! confpire to 
render’ this deftination likely. The Se- 
cond Epiftle therefore cannot with any- 
probability be dated) much after the year 
60, as Mary muft by ‘that time have at- 
tained already a very ‘venerable old age, 
and had loft) (v.13): ber cotemporary 
and fifter, Where ‘fhe dwelt, is un- 
known. Yet the number of ) Greek 
names occurring in the other private Jet- 
ter (or Third Epifile) forbid the tuppo- 
fition of a correfpondence in Palefine: 
and it is not natural that Mary fhould 
have withdrawn further trom Nazareth 
or from Jerufalem, than to Antioch’ or | 
to Damatcus. Of Antioch: much is 
known from the Aéts of the Apoitles ; 
bat no mention occurs of a Gaius, a 
Diotrephes, or a Denietrius, eminent 
among the believers there 5 it is there- 
fore probably not addrefled to one of the 
faithiu? of Antioch. Bot as the General 
Epifile difcufies that do&rine ot Zoroaf- 
ter that God is the light, and other quef- 
tions of oriental philotophy, fuch as were 
likely to be afloat at Damafcus, that city 
may well have been the refidence of thefe 
perfons, and of Mary. Demetrius was, 
perhaps, one of the -itinerane Chriftf%n 
priefthood, and the bearer of the three 
letters. : Was] 
Rr In 
