Page 2 of 4
Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:06 pm
by davidmartin
that was just another odes rant every now and again i do that
well one dating criteria is from Lattke who is a fine scholar until he starts his dating
https://www.academia.edu/7003191/Dating ... of_Solomon
his argument rests entirely on similarities to writings like Ignatius and parallels with other writings that are dated early 2nd century
There's no dependence or theological argument he's identifying similarities so he uses these to place the Odes here its not very convincing
Now if he were to do this then add something to the effect they could also be earlier that's fair enough
Why doesn't he just give a wider range like 50 - 150 AD with 100-125 being most likely?
If Paul's writings were unknown and Romans turned up would anyone date them to the 50's AD? I bet they wouldn't! i can see it now 'such sophisticated theology sure must date to the early 2nd century'
Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:22 pm
by Ben C. Smith
davidmartin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:06 pm
that was just another odes rant every now and again i do that
well one dating criteria is from Lattke who is a fine scholar until he starts his dating
https://www.academia.edu/7003191/Dating ... of_Solomon
his argument rests entirely on similarities to writings like Ignatius and parallels with other writings that are dated early 2nd century
There's no dependence or theological argument he's identifying similarities so he uses these to place the Odes here its not very convincing
Now if he were to do this then add something to the effect they could also be earlier that's fair enough
Why doesn't he just give a wider range like 50 - 150 AD with 100-125 being most likely?
If Paul's writings were unknown and Romans turned up would anyone date them to the 50's AD? I bet they wouldn't! i can see it now 'such sophisticated theology sure must date to the early 2nd century'
I understand. Truth be told, I have never been a fan of dating texts by how similar they are to other texts; similarity can come about by later imitation, as well.
I think I may have been pouring more meaning than you intended into your characterization of Ode 19 as an "early witness."
Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:36 pm
by davidmartin
No problems Ben what i just don't understand is why a Jewish Christian writing isn't more important that's all it comes down to. i just don't get it
19 can be split in 2 parts. i feel the 2nd part has a 'looking back' kind of feel to it. it could be later...
Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:11 am
by davidmartin
One overlooked aspect of the Odes is their familiarity with the saviour figure in it. It would be interesting to see if this could become a hypothesis that the author is claiming personal association with this figure. I recon it could be done and then fed into an early date argument
It's interesting how only the gospel of John presents similar scenes of familiarity in it's dialog sections.. i'm not sure how to correctly characterise this difference between John and the synoptics in a scholarly way! (One of the mysteries i haven't figured out any theory for is how come Mark doesn't do this but John does)
So the Odes IMO do claim to actually have met the saviour in it and knew him
Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:38 am
by andrewcriddle
The Odes of Solomon may have passages directed against Marcion and may be using Tatian's diatessaron.
See
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3141&p=70212#p70212
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3141&start=20#p70076
Andrew Criddle
Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:50 am
by Secret Alias
I've always wondered the exact opposite POV - could the Odes be the Marcionite Psalms mentioned in the Muratorian canon
Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:52 am
by Ben C. Smith
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:50 am
I've always wondered the exact opposite POV - could the Odes be the Marcionite Psalms mentioned in the Muratorian canon
Basilides supposedly composed songs, as well.
Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:45 am
by davidmartin
These are all pretty much guesses that don't help date them
Nothing conclusive i see so far
I can point out parts in them that suggest the author knew the saviour figure giving an internal dating to the 50's
Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:28 am
by Ben C. Smith
davidmartin wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:45 am
These are all pretty much guesses that don't help date them
Nothing conclusive i see so far
That is the problem: nothing conclusive (until the Odes start showing up in patristic quotations, in gnostic speculations, and in the manuscript history).
That may also be why scholars hesitate to do much with them, Stevan Davies being the huge exception (and also being one taking a risk by committing to an approximate date for them).
Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:54 pm
by Secret Alias
When the Odes are cited in the Pistis Sophia they come from a collection with a different ordering. This follows the 'jumbled' order of many orthodox text (i.e. Irenaeus who says that the heretics move around the stones of a mosaic which is another way of saying potentially that the orthodox jumbled the order). Because this happened with the Marcionite canon AND it is hard to believe that the orthodox would HAVE TO alter a Basilidean composition I suspect it is Marcionite. Not great reasons but the only ones I can see.