Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:48 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:54 pm
When the Odes are cited in the Pistis Sophia they come from a collection with a different ordering.
I doubt that. The Pistis Sophia numbers our Ode 1 as Ode 19. It is the same ordering, but it assumes the Psalms of Solomon, eighteen in number, to be prefaced before the Odes and both works numbered sequentially: Ode 19 = 18 Psalms of Solomon + 1 Ode of Solomon = our Ode 1.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12692
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:12 pm

Odes 25 and 22 are dealt with successively in the Pistis Sophia with our 22 referenced as "the second " hymn. This coupled with 1 cited as 19 argues for a different ordering.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:22 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:12 pm
Odes 25 and 22 are dealt with successively in the Pistis Sophia with our 22 referenced as "the second " hymn. This coupled with 1 cited as 19 argues for a different ordering.
What is the reference?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:25 pm

Ode 22 is cited (not by number) in chapter 71: http://gnosis.org/library/pistis-sophia/ps076.htm.

Ode 25 is cited (not by number) in chapter 69: http://gnosis.org/library/pistis-sophia/ps074.htm.

Not knowing Coptic, I am dependent upon an English translation. What am I missing?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12692
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:13 pm

“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12692
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:18 pm

It is also interesting that the Psalms are identified as by David (not entirely surprising) but the odes or hymns are attributed in one place to Solomon the son of David perhaps as a way of making them appear more orthodox.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12692
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:21 pm

I understand that the second hymn applies to the interpretation of the odes but the gospel passages discussed in succession appear in the order of the gospel from memory (the cast fire, strong man, divide household is as it appears in Luke even though it is cited successively again from memory)
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:05 pm

That is referring to the second hymn of Sophia, not the second Ode of Solomon.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12692
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:36 pm

See above
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

davidmartin
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Matthew, Luke, & the Protevangelium of James (for David).

Post by davidmartin » Fri Sep 25, 2020 12:19 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:28 am
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).
On the other hand, that's not a bad resume :)
They show up in patristic quotations, the Pistis Sophia and manuscripts back to 3rd century

When it says stuff like "eternal life has arisen in the Lord's land", "For a great day has shined upon us", "and (I) have seen His holy day"
If eternal life arose in Isreal and the author has seen it then the author wrote in Isreal
This and other stuff sure make it sound like it was written by Jewish Christians (no notion of a second coming in the Odes)
So i think scholars should be trying to disprove the early date/Jewish context that internally the Odes claim and go from there, not trying to give them mickey mouse dates. It's like when 2 Peter says "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ" 2 Peter is claiming to be 50-60's AD and that's the date that should be put to scrutiny since its internal to the text
I think there's some other reason the Odes are understudied, maybe they don't please the majority of the views held by scholars?
Christian apologists - raises too many problems for those guys best ignore, Gnostics - not gnostic enough, Mythicists - too 'historical Jesus', i think this is the reasons

Post Reply