and that possibly the component parts belong to different periods; so that what may sometimes appear contradictory in one writing in reality represents some development of thought belonging to a later writer. But however this may be, we certainly find in the Wisdom Literature positions taken up which show to some extent a departure from traditional Judaism. The wise men present a very interesting combination in that they are at once universalistic and conservative. We find in the Wisdom Literature but little stress laid on national institutions and laws, such, for example, as the sacrificial system; it is recognized, it is true, but rather because it is thought right to keep up the old customs than that there is any intrinsic value or permanent necessity in the system. In like manner the Messianic expectations receive very scanty recognition. The attitude of the sages towards the Gentiles is generally friendly; they recognized the higher culture, in many respects, of these nations, and were therefore willing to learn from them; not infrequently we find, for example, that the God of the Jews is declared to be the God of all men. But the most striking characteristic, which is quite un-Jewish, is the conception of the God-like _Sophia_, which is conceived of as a creative divine power existing before the creation of the world; “this hypostatization of Wisdom,” says Friedländer, “is here a downright sacrilege; it betrays the violent entry of an alien spirit into the domain of Judaism, and even the fine way in which the essence of the divine Wisdom is described cannot for a moment blind us to the act of violence perpetrated by the forcible intrusion of Greek conceptions into the atmosphere of the old Hebrew idea of Wisdom.”[302] But as we deal in section III of this chapter with the conception of Wisdom as portrayed in all the books of the Wisdom Literature, it will not be necessary to say anything on this subject here. II. THE ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW CONCEPTION OF WISDOM