Psalm 22:16 is quoted in Odes of Salomon but without inferring from it a crucifixion
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 6:41 am
That is to say all (as evidence of the fact that the Psalm 22:16 as it reads today was original ).
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Andrew CriddleAs the wings of doves over their nestlings, and the mouths of their nestlings towards their mouths, so also are the wings of the Spirit over my heart.
My heart continually refreshes itself and leaps for joy, like the babe who leaps for joy in his mother's womb.
I trusted, consequently I was at rest; because trustful is He in whom I trusted.
He has greatly blessed me, and my head is with Him.
And the dagger shall not divide me from Him, nor the sword;
Because I am ready before destruction comes, and have been set on His immortal side.
And immortal life embraced me, and kissed me.
And from that life is the Spirit which is within me. And it cannot die because it is life.
Those who saw me were amazed, because I was persecuted.
And they thought that I had been swallowed up, because I seemed to them as one of the lost.
But my injustice became my salvation.
And I became their abomination, because there was no jealousy in me.
Because I continually did good to every man I was hated.
And they surrounded me like mad dogs, those who in stupidity attack their masters.
Because their thought is depraved, and their mind is perverted.
But I was carrying water in my right hand, and their bitterness I endured by my sweetness.
And I did not perish, because I was not their brother, nor was my birth like theirs.
And they sought my death but did not find it possible, because I was older than their memory; and in vain did they cast lots against me.
And those who were after me sought in vain to destroy the memorial of Him who was before them.
Because the thought of the Most High cannot be prepossessed; and His heart is superior to all wisdom.
This fits in well with the theory the Odes represents the earliest form of the Christian movement which was already using psalms but wasn't aware or opposed to the usage put to them in circles outside their fellowship.And they condemned me when I stood up, me who had not been condemned.
Then they divided my spoil, though nothing was owed them.
But I endured and held my peace and was silent
I still do not understand this argument of yours, to be honest. In which verse(s) in Galatians is this group mentioned and/or denied?davidmartin wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 2:14 pm it isn't unexpected if the Odes people's theology was different and they were aware of the crucifixion but it didn't play the role it later came to - in fact the Odes continually stress the immortality of the messiah and his eternal life. which actually makes sense
I would suggest the crucifixion and later resurrection were thought of differently by the Odes people who simply saw the immortality of the Christ as immutable.. none of this is totally alien to orthodoxy, it's just put and emphasised quite differently
It's worth noting the cry on the cross "my god why have you forsaken me" from that psalm is at odds with the Odes as wellThis fits in well with the theory the Odes represents the earliest form of the Christian movement which was already using psalms but wasn't aware or opposed to the usage put to them in circles outside their fellowship.And they condemned me when I stood up, me who had not been condemned.
Then they divided my spoil, though nothing was owed them.
But I endured and held my peace and was silent
Like I've said before it also explains where Paul got many of his ideas from too, from his contact with this group which he later denied in Galatians
Okay, thank you for the explanation. It at least makes more sense to me now.davidmartin wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 3:43 pm Ben, ok, you are right I never really explained it, i just don't expect anyone to be interested in my theory so never thought i'd ever need to
Paul certainly denies, vehemently ever having much to do with the Jerusalem church, raising questions
I sometimes watch youtube videos by Jews for Judaism to get their take. The rather likeable bearded chap that often presents it covered Galatians and his reaction to Paul's denial is total disbelief. He actually hit his forehead with his palms because he couldn't grasp why contact with the original followers of Jesus wouldn't have been a good thing for him. So its not just me that thinks it is odd
Then, why?
It goes like this, it is because first there was the Odes people Christians, the real Galilee church and centre of the whole thing originally
The Peter he is meeting and talking about in Galatians is not from this group, but an apostle of the 'Judaiser' church which either split from the Odes people years before, or was never a part of it in the first place. In any case the 'Judaiser' church is totally opposed to the Odes people and their descendants
Paul is obviously having a hard time convincing this Peter he is on the same side as him
The rumour was Paul was part of the Odes people church for a while so he is forced to deny this rumour, because the 'Judaisers' viewed them as opponents. That is why Paul denies it
But if you compare Paul's theology to the Odes there is enough common material to suggest he had been part of it and where he got those ideas from before turning against it himself for whatever reason, and preaching his own gospel which also differs significantly too
This might sound elaborate but all i'm suggesting is the Christian church pre-Paul was split in two. The side he was trying to appeal to said they heard he spent time with the other side and so he played it down. He was trying to deny rumours used against him. The Odes people fall neatly into one of those sides, with the Judaisers being people that wanted to make Jesus fit into their ideas of being more a prophet and basically where the Clementine literature takes us and so on, and they believed in hell and all of that as well unlike the Odes people
So i believe Paul's denial supports the idea of an Odes people in the context of two competing groups, explains the denial, explains where he got many of his ideas from, and explains how the later orthodox Christianity contains elements from all three groups, a crude approximation: Paul (his letters), the Judaisers (Matthew, Revelation, James), the Odes people (John's gospel and some of the sources behind the synoptics + whatever Paul got from them)
If true it would mean the real historical Jesus has been obscured by this process quite a bit
I disagree with the logic of this. Paul, in my view, thought of his noncircumcision gospel as the one and only true gospel for gentiles. He had nothing in mind that would nullify all previous gospels on principle. His sine qua non was that gentiles did not need to submit to circumcision in order to be right with God.davidmartin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:21 amIt's just the premise itself means Paul comes along with a revelation from God that makes all prior gospels of no account whatever they may be, even if coming from well known apostles.
I do not think that Paul saw himself as the chief apostle. In fact, I think his words preclude such a thing. He saw himself as the apostle to the gentiles, but at the same time he did not frown upon those whose apostolate took them only to the Jews. This means that different spheres of influence are in play, and he has no interest in the gospel to Jews, which means that he cannot be chief even of those apostles who went to the Jews.Apostles who even if they were not intimate disciples of the historical Jesus based their authority on association with him (whether true or not) while some presumably were actual disciples. Either way it is absurd that Jesus's own disciples who he taught and mentored for years, suddenly must accept Paul as chief apostle and his gospel with it, no questions asked.
While I do not think that the idea is absurd, I do disagree with it, like you do. I think that others went to the gentiles before Paul; but most or all of them required circumcision, and that was what Paul disagreed with (for gentiles).This is where many get ammunition that Paul totally invented 'gentile Christianity' from a previously strict Torah observant base.. which I don't think is true, and is also absurd in it's own right
I am not sure what this is in reference to.I see no great problem for Paul in the context of past hobnobbing with people the Galatians already had accepted. A revelation can be a 'clarification' very easily and i just don't see the big deal here, why it is an existential problem for Paul of such huge significance?
There is a need to explain how it is an existential problem for him.
What verse(s) are you talking about in this respect?If on the other hand he was being accused of associating with folks the Galatians had been warned about and got his ideas from them.... yes that would do it. And explain his emphasis on a unique revelation even more. "No i did not hobnob with Mary and Thomas" or whoever it was. He doesn't mention names but alludes to mysterious others who remain unnamed.
So he's denying seeing other apostles, as if this was some kind of problem and later he also complains again about them as he does elsewhere (super apostles)"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
His style is combative for sure, for the 'least of the apostles'!But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me