There is a long discussion about a possible pre-Christian origin of the Odes of Solomon at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3141
Andrew Criddle
The Christ Odes
Re: The Christ Odes
As for the conventional dating of the Odes of Solomon to the early 2nd century (Lattke, Charlesworth), perhaps the most serious problem (second only to the absence of the name Jesus) is the reference in Ode 6:8 to "the temple."
This question has been debated before by Andrew and Giuseppe. What follows is my critique of Lattke's interpretation of 6:8.
Lattke takes the position that this occurrence of the word "temple"
Now is not the flooding river of stanza 4 a metaphor or image of the spreading knowledge of the Lord, which destroys what is alien and overcomes all resistence, drawing the whole world to God's temple in Jerusalem, sc. the place where the Most High is known? The mention of the temple is a dramatic focal point of the Ode: to it the waters are drawn, just as to the knowledge of the Most High, the whole world is drawn. The final couplet makes the knowledge/water metaphor explicit. The temple as symbol of knowledge of the Lord is, on this reading, key to the meaning of the Ode.
For Lattke, however, the 4th stanza is a "gnosticizing text", "filled with metaphors", "one of the most enigmatic passages in the Odes of Solomon." Strangely, he says that it is "a self-contained mythos of a symbolic river, connected to the following stanzas "only by the catchwords 'drink', 'his [the Lord's] water', and 'living water.'" I would say that's a more than adequate connection!
But then he goes on to say that the river image is in fact borrowed from Wisdom's praise of herself in
And now we get to the basis for Lattke's nihilistic reading of "temple" in Ode 6. After noting numerous verbal parallels between the two texts, he gets to the point:
2) "a temple" would be a non-sensical translation; "the temple," as translated, is the only possible sense.
3) Is the hapax legomenon argument here that one occurrence of the word might as well be zero, since 1 is close to 0?
4) What is a "symbolic conflation"? Are we to imagine the Odist reworking the passage from Sirach, extracting a "self-contained mythos" of a flooding river, and then his eye falls on the word temple, and he decides "what the hell, throw it in there too even if it doesn't mean anything in this here Ode that I'm writing"?
5) Granted that the Odist might have been influenced by Sirach, verbally and symbolically, does that fact define the referential universe of Ode 6? What principle of criticism is at work here?
6) Why does "the mythos take place in some undefined and timeless past"? The Odist begins in the first person, in the present tense. He speaks of "those ...who were added to us by his grace." A remembered communal experience seems to be indicated, even if, beginning with the river image, a more cosmic perspective takes over.
7) If we already know that the Odes are post-100, then I suppose there is "no point in asking whether the Second Temple still existed in Jerusalem when this Ode was composed." If we don't know that, then we should ask.
8) Lattke may cough loudly at the word "temple," but is it believable that a Jewish (or Jewish Christian) community in the 100s would casually toss out the image of the temple, and not have it mean something? Wouldn't the word evoke a traumatic memory, which would spoil the otherwise joyful theme of Ode 6?
This question has been debated before by Andrew and Giuseppe. What follows is my critique of Lattke's interpretation of 6:8.
Lattke takes the position that this occurrence of the word "temple"
I think this interpretation is a complete mess. But first, it is important to appreciate the theme and structure of the entire Ode:"...may not have any specific meaning..." (p.81)
Ode 6 (from the Syriac)
As the wind blows through the cithara
and the strings speak,
so the spirit of the Lord speaks in my members,
and I speak in his love.
For he destroys what is alien,
and everything is of the Lord.
For so it was from the beginning and until the end,
that there should be nothing opposing
and nothing standing against him.
The Lord increased his knowledge,
and he was zealous that those might be known
that were added to us by his grace.
And he gave us his praise for his name:
our spirits praise his holy spirit.
A rivulet issued forth and became a great and wide river,
and it flooded everything and shattered and carried it to the temple.
And the restraints of men could not restrain it,
not even the skills of those who restrain water.
For it spread over the face of all the earth and inundated everything.
And all the thirsty upon the earth drank,
and thirst was stilled and quenched,
for from the Most High the drink was offered.
Blessed, therefore, are the ministers of that drink,
those who have been entrusted with his water.
They have revived the parched lips
and raised up the will that was paralyzed,
and the souls that were near to expiring they held back from death,
and limbs that had fallen, they straightened and set upright.
They gave strength to their coming and light to their eyes.
Because everyone knew them in the Lord
they also lived because of the ever-living water.
(tr. Lattke/Ehrhardt, stanzas added by Lattke)
As the wind blows through the cithara
and the strings speak,
so the spirit of the Lord speaks in my members,
and I speak in his love.
For he destroys what is alien,
and everything is of the Lord.
For so it was from the beginning and until the end,
that there should be nothing opposing
and nothing standing against him.
The Lord increased his knowledge,
and he was zealous that those might be known
that were added to us by his grace.
And he gave us his praise for his name:
our spirits praise his holy spirit.
A rivulet issued forth and became a great and wide river,
and it flooded everything and shattered and carried it to the temple.
And the restraints of men could not restrain it,
not even the skills of those who restrain water.
For it spread over the face of all the earth and inundated everything.
And all the thirsty upon the earth drank,
and thirst was stilled and quenched,
for from the Most High the drink was offered.
Blessed, therefore, are the ministers of that drink,
those who have been entrusted with his water.
They have revived the parched lips
and raised up the will that was paralyzed,
and the souls that were near to expiring they held back from death,
and limbs that had fallen, they straightened and set upright.
They gave strength to their coming and light to their eyes.
Because everyone knew them in the Lord
they also lived because of the ever-living water.
(tr. Lattke/Ehrhardt, stanzas added by Lattke)
Now is not the flooding river of stanza 4 a metaphor or image of the spreading knowledge of the Lord, which destroys what is alien and overcomes all resistence, drawing the whole world to God's temple in Jerusalem, sc. the place where the Most High is known? The mention of the temple is a dramatic focal point of the Ode: to it the waters are drawn, just as to the knowledge of the Most High, the whole world is drawn. The final couplet makes the knowledge/water metaphor explicit. The temple as symbol of knowledge of the Lord is, on this reading, key to the meaning of the Ode.
For Lattke, however, the 4th stanza is a "gnosticizing text", "filled with metaphors", "one of the most enigmatic passages in the Odes of Solomon." Strangely, he says that it is "a self-contained mythos of a symbolic river, connected to the following stanzas "only by the catchwords 'drink', 'his [the Lord's] water', and 'living water.'" I would say that's a more than adequate connection!
But then he goes on to say that the river image is in fact borrowed from Wisdom's praise of herself in
Sirach 24:30-34.
I went forth like a canal from a river
and like a water channel into a garden.
I said, “I will water my orchard
and drench my garden plot”;
and lo, my canal became a river,
and my river became a sea.
I will again make instruction shine forth like the dawn,
and I will make it shine afar;
I will again pour out teaching like prophecy,
and leave it to all future generations.
Observe that I have not labored for myself alone,
but for all who seek instruction.
I went forth like a canal from a river
and like a water channel into a garden.
I said, “I will water my orchard
and drench my garden plot”;
and lo, my canal became a river,
and my river became a sea.
I will again make instruction shine forth like the dawn,
and I will make it shine afar;
I will again pour out teaching like prophecy,
and leave it to all future generations.
Observe that I have not labored for myself alone,
but for all who seek instruction.
And now we get to the basis for Lattke's nihilistic reading of "temple" in Ode 6. After noting numerous verbal parallels between the two texts, he gets to the point:
1) It is not an "allusion" but a reference, a use of the word."The problem of 6:8 is the allusion to the or a temple. The simplest supposition is that, since Ode 6 is so strongly influenced by Sirach 24, the word [temple], which occurs only here and plays no further role, is a symbolic conflation of Sir 24:10b-11b where the Temple Mount and the city of Jerusalem are named in parallel. Since the mythos takes place in some undefined and timeless past, there is no point in asking whether the Second Temple still existed in Jerusalem when this Ode was composed. The temple of this new image may not have any specific meaning, such as 'the heavenly sanctuary' or 'the Church'." (p. 81)
2) "a temple" would be a non-sensical translation; "the temple," as translated, is the only possible sense.
3) Is the hapax legomenon argument here that one occurrence of the word might as well be zero, since 1 is close to 0?
4) What is a "symbolic conflation"? Are we to imagine the Odist reworking the passage from Sirach, extracting a "self-contained mythos" of a flooding river, and then his eye falls on the word temple, and he decides "what the hell, throw it in there too even if it doesn't mean anything in this here Ode that I'm writing"?
5) Granted that the Odist might have been influenced by Sirach, verbally and symbolically, does that fact define the referential universe of Ode 6? What principle of criticism is at work here?
6) Why does "the mythos take place in some undefined and timeless past"? The Odist begins in the first person, in the present tense. He speaks of "those ...who were added to us by his grace." A remembered communal experience seems to be indicated, even if, beginning with the river image, a more cosmic perspective takes over.
7) If we already know that the Odes are post-100, then I suppose there is "no point in asking whether the Second Temple still existed in Jerusalem when this Ode was composed." If we don't know that, then we should ask.
8) Lattke may cough loudly at the word "temple," but is it believable that a Jewish (or Jewish Christian) community in the 100s would casually toss out the image of the temple, and not have it mean something? Wouldn't the word evoke a traumatic memory, which would spoil the otherwise joyful theme of Ode 6?
-
Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: The Christ Odes
You make excellent points here. Would you apply this same logic to the date of 2 Thessalonians, for which metaphorical interpretations of "the temple" always seem to fail at some crucial juncture?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
-
andrewcriddle
- Posts: 2850
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am
Re: The Christ Odes
IMO the reference in Ode 6 to water and the temple are allusions to the beginning of Ezekiel 47
Andrew CriddleThe man brought me back to the entrance to the temple, and I saw water coming out from under the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east). The water was coming down from under the south side of the temple, south of the altar. 2 He then brought me out through the north gate and led me around the outside to the outer gate facing east, and the water was trickling from the south side...
Re: The Christ Odes
Two schools of thought on the shift between human and divine voice that occurs in the Odes of Solomon--
"David Aune says the Odes preserve a distinctive type of early Christian utterance, "the prophetic hymn," in which Jesus speaks in first person.
...At certain points the "voice" speaking appears to be that of Jesus (e.g. 8, 10, 17, 31, 42). In these passages the speaker recounts in first-person form the actions that almost certainly are the redemptive work of Jesus, as widely celebrated in early Christianity. In 17, for example, the speaker narrates opening gates that were shut and shattering iron bars, and he tells of giving knowledge and other blessings to those who "became my members" and he "their head." The doxology that immediately follows, "glory to you, our head, O Lord Messiah" suggests the identity of the speaker of the preceding verses."
Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (pp. 611-13).
...At certain points the "voice" speaking appears to be that of Jesus (e.g. 8, 10, 17, 31, 42). In these passages the speaker recounts in first-person form the actions that almost certainly are the redemptive work of Jesus, as widely celebrated in early Christianity. In 17, for example, the speaker narrates opening gates that were shut and shattering iron bars, and he tells of giving knowledge and other blessings to those who "became my members" and he "their head." The doxology that immediately follows, "glory to you, our head, O Lord Messiah" suggests the identity of the speaker of the preceding verses."
Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (pp. 611-13).
"What makes the Odes particularly interesting is their propensity to shift back and forth from poetic speech that seems to emerge from a human worshipper to speech that seems to emerge from a divine being, a messiah, a son of God.
...The Odes when they reflect a transformation of a human person to a divine person, ultimately derive from a particular type of human experience, one that is documented everywhere and through all times. That experience is a form of psychological dissociation that we can call "spirit possession," a type of experience that is probably a genetically determined possibility available to anyone with the right cultural conditioning and group expectation.
The experience can be described in secular terms as follows: one's primary personality is set aside or minimized and a secondary personality occurs.
...In religious settings, however, the experience of such personality dissociation will usually be explained as the arrival into a person of an external secondary personality which will be understood to be that of God, a spirit, an ancestor, and so forth depending on the local theology.
...We find an excellent example of such transformation in Ode 17 where the speaker, having been unchained, becomes the liberator of others whose chains he destroys. Ode 17 begins with a transformation story, which is described as liberation. The speaker is a new person, newly unchained, now a stranger in the world from which he came.
...The speaker, transformed, can now facilitate the transformation of others.
Stevan Davies, Spirit Possession and the Origins of Christianity (pp.252-57).
...The Odes when they reflect a transformation of a human person to a divine person, ultimately derive from a particular type of human experience, one that is documented everywhere and through all times. That experience is a form of psychological dissociation that we can call "spirit possession," a type of experience that is probably a genetically determined possibility available to anyone with the right cultural conditioning and group expectation.
The experience can be described in secular terms as follows: one's primary personality is set aside or minimized and a secondary personality occurs.
...In religious settings, however, the experience of such personality dissociation will usually be explained as the arrival into a person of an external secondary personality which will be understood to be that of God, a spirit, an ancestor, and so forth depending on the local theology.
...We find an excellent example of such transformation in Ode 17 where the speaker, having been unchained, becomes the liberator of others whose chains he destroys. Ode 17 begins with a transformation story, which is described as liberation. The speaker is a new person, newly unchained, now a stranger in the world from which he came.
...The speaker, transformed, can now facilitate the transformation of others.
The Lord Christos is both the savior and a status that one might strive to attain, the goal and culmination of the Odes religious quest, so that the speaker in the Ode is himself the saved savior. The Odes of Solomon therefore present a "saved savior" model such that potentially any and all human beings can receive the spirit, ascend to the place of God, and be transformed into a son of God to serve as a model for the transformation of others."And I went to all my shut-in ones to set them free,
lest I leave any who is bound or who binds.
And I gave my gnosis without jealousy
and my consolation through my love.
And I sowed my fruits in hearts
and transformed them in me.
And they received my blessing and lived,
and were gathered to me and were saved,
because they were my members
and I their head.
Glory to thee, our head, Lord Christos.
Hallelujah.
Stevan Davies, Spirit Possession and the Origins of Christianity (pp.252-57).
Re: The Christ Odes
If Charlesworth, Lattke, Aune, Hurtado and the general run of Christian scholars who have studied the Odes are so firm in their opinion that it really is Jesus speaking in the Odes of Solomon, I have two questions:
1) Why don't theologians and historical Jesus questers today ever attribute these words to Jesus? (Maybe someone has for all I know)
2) What is the theory as to why the early church would consign these texts to the Old Testament apocrypha, if they knew (as someone must have known) that they were a record either of Jesus' ipsissima verba, or at least of words attributed to him by his earliest followers? Lattke is clearly aware of this problem and troubled by it.
1) Why don't theologians and historical Jesus questers today ever attribute these words to Jesus? (Maybe someone has for all I know)
2) What is the theory as to why the early church would consign these texts to the Old Testament apocrypha, if they knew (as someone must have known) that they were a record either of Jesus' ipsissima verba, or at least of words attributed to him by his earliest followers? Lattke is clearly aware of this problem and troubled by it.