How Does Christianity Work?

[neilgodfrey]

Odes of Solomon 27.1-3: 1 I stretched out my hands and sanctified my Lord, 2 for the extension of my hands is His sign, 3 and my expansion is the upright tree.

Odes of Solomon 42.1-6: 1 I stretched out my hands and approached my Lord, 2 for the stretching of my hands is His sign. 2 My expansion is the outspread tree which was set up on the way of the Righteous One. 4 And I became of no account to those who did not take hold of me and I shall be with those who love me. 5 All my persecutors are dead; and they sought after me who hoped in me, because I was alive. 6 And I rose up and am with them; and I will speak by their mouths.

We are asked to interpret these verses as follows.

1) The Odist is describing his own prayer experience
2) This involves stretching and extending his hands outwards.
3) This action is characterized metaphorically by the Odist as “the upright wood/tree”
4) This stretching is “the Lord’s sign”
5) This “outspread tree” is “set up on the way of the righteous one”

From a poem about a prayer, about a posture, which is like unto a tree, which is a sign, to......a historical crucifixion!

Yes this is tendentious nonsense. Both the image of a human with raised hands in prayer and the image of a tree are way too commonplace and universal to warrant anything like this.

The Charlesworth translation is therefore garbage because he inserts “cross” in the place of “wood.”

Charlesworth's translation may not be garbage or unwarranted theological bias in the light of an article by Max Wilcox, ""Upon the Tree": Deut 21:22-23 in the New Testament" -- available online at https://www.jstor.org/stable/3265329

The argument there is that "wood" and "tree" and "cross" become interchangeable through the story of the binding of Isaac -- who was made to carry the wood for his sacrifice just as Jesus carried his cross for his sacrifice (God returning the favour of Abraham by sacrificing his "beloved son" -- and his blood covering the sins of all nations just as Isaac's blood (it was actually shed according to some Second Temple thinking, as per Jon Levenson in "Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son") covered the sins of Israel. Wilcox sees Paul midrashically working with Deuteronomy (cursed on a tree) and Genesis (Isaac bound to the wood that he had carried) to have Jesus crucified "on a tree/on the wood" = "the cross".

Some of what looks like nonsense on first reading turns out to look somewhat plausible once we check out how the Second Temple exegetes worked with their "midrashic" interpretations of linking up disparate texts on the basis of a single word.

Check it out for the fuller explanation: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3265329

[Irish1975]

Charlesworth's translation may not be garbage or unwarranted theological bias in the light of an article by Max Wilcox, ""Upon the Tree": Deut 21:22-23 in the New Testament" -- available online at https://www.jstor.org/stable/3265329

The argument there is that "wood" and "tree" and "cross" become interchangeable through the story of the binding of Isaac -- who was made to carry the wood for his sacrifice just as Jesus carried his cross for his sacrifice (God returning the favour of Abraham by sacrificing his "beloved son" -- and his blood covering the sins of all nations just as Isaac's blood (it was actually shed according to some Second Temple thinking, as per Jon Levenson in "Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son") covered the sins of Israel. Wilcox sees Paul midrashically working with Deuteronomy (cursed on a tree) and Genesis (Isaac bound to the wood that he had carried) to have Jesus crucified "on a tree/on the wood" = "the cross".

Some of what looks like nonsense on first reading turns out to look somewhat plausible once we check out how the Second Temple exegetes worked with their "midrashic" interpretations of linking up disparate texts on the basis of a single word.

Check it out for the fuller explanation: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3265329

Neil,

My issue with mainstream scholars on the Odes—Charlesworth, Lattke—is that they simply assume that these texts and their author(s) are aware of NT texts and/or themes, and are operating in the same sandbox. If you read the introduction of Lattke’s definitive Hermeneia commentary, you will find that the justification for positing a NT background to the Odes is extremely weak, and almost non-existent. There is a fairly solid terminus post quo for dating them no later than the 2nd century, but Lattke for all his diligence can find no terminus ante quem. The Odes could be extremely early. In fact, their omission of the name of Jesus all but rules out any knowledge of the Pauline gospel.

That’s why the translation of “wood” as “cross” in Odes 27/42 is tendentious. It serves to confirm for the naive reader that the Odist had knowledge of a historically crucified Messiah, which is merely a vain assumption by scholars.

If you want to argue that the Odist is engaging in Midrash on the Pentateuch, that is a very steep climb IMO. There are no direct contextual clues for that. Whereas Paul says, “just as Abraham did so and thus...”, and the author of the letter of Barnabas does likewise, and so on in the tradition of early Christian allegory/midrash of the OT discussed by Wilcox, the Odes are entirely self-authenticating visions and enunciations. They resonate with plenty of traditional OT material, but that is quite different from a claim of midrash/allegory.

[neilgodfrey]

Like you I see a giant question mark hanging over claims of the direct influence of New Testament writings on the Odes. I don't see any strong reason to think that anything in Paul's writings directly influenced them. I am more willing to see a common constellation of ideas that fed into both Odes and Paul (and John) though.

[mlinssen]

Odes of Solomon 27.1-3: 1 I stretched out my hands and sanctified my Lord, 2 for the extension of my hands is His sign, 3 and my expansion is the upright tree.

Odes of Solomon 42.1-6: 1 I stretched out my hands and approached my Lord, 2 for the stretching of my hands is His sign. 2 My expansion is the outspread tree which was set up on the way of the Righteous One. 4 And I became of no account to those who did not take hold of me and I shall be with those who love me. 5 All my persecutors are dead; and they sought after me who hoped in me, because I was alive. 6 And I rose up and am with them; and I will speak by their mouths.

We are asked to interpret these verses as follows.

1) The Odist is describing his own prayer experience
2) This involves stretching and extending his hands outwards.
3) This action is characterized metaphorically by the Odist as “the upright wood/tree”
4) This stretching is “the Lord’s sign”
5) This “outspread tree” is “set up on the way of the righteous one”

From a poem about a prayer, about a posture, which is like unto a tree, which is a sign, to......a historical crucifixion!

Yes this is tendentious nonsense. Both the image of a human with raised hands in prayer and the image of a tree are way too commonplace and universal to warrant anything like this.

The Charlesworth translation is therefore garbage because he inserts “cross” in the place of “wood.”

Charlesworth's translation may not be garbage or unwarranted theological bias in the light of an article by Max Wilcox, ""Upon the Tree": Deut 21:22-23 in the New Testament" -- available online at https://www.jstor.org/stable/3265329

The argument there is that "wood" and "tree" and "cross" become interchangeable through the story of the binding of Isaac -- who was made to carry the wood for his sacrifice just as Jesus carried his cross for his sacrifice (God returning the favour of Abraham by sacrificing his "beloved son" -- and his blood covering the sins of all nations just as Isaac's blood (it was actually shed according to some Second Temple thinking, as per Jon Levenson in "Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son") covered the sins of Israel. Wilcox sees Paul midrashically working with Deuteronomy (cursed on a tree) and Genesis (Isaac bound to the wood that he had carried) to have Jesus crucified "on a tree/on the wood" = "the cross".

Some of what looks like nonsense on first reading turns out to look somewhat plausible once we check out how the Second Temple exegetes worked with their "midrashic" interpretations of linking up disparate texts on the basis of a single word.

Check it out for the fuller explanation: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3265329

I just read the Odes last week for the first time, and got the impression of a Psalm. Better yet, I think if we were to mix in a few odes among the Psalms, no one would notice. I mean, he's even written psalms himself - let's suppose it's a he for arguments sake

All the damn usual suspects of this world treat their Jesus as the centre of the universe, and engage with texts from that viewpoint. If they like the text, they try to date it as early as possible; if they don't, they try to shove it towards 4th century or even beyond

I don't see any Jesus in the odes, not at all.
Ode 19 with father, son and holy spirit has a definite wow factor of course, especially with the virgin giving birth. But milking the Father and delivering without pain, as if it were a human, tells of a story behind this story that needn't be told, according to the author.
The dove in 24 is statistically unsurprising really, let's have at least one similarity with the NT for crying out loud?
Ode 42, the outstretched hands: I imagine those being either straight to heaven, this forming the letter I, yod, or in a Y form, and I suspect the posture to mimick YHWH, symbolise the letter I, 10 - for perfection

Does it have anything to do with Jesus being crucified in that position? Perhaps the odes, likely even, inspired many, but it is out of the question that this scene right here is based on the crucifiction

[davidmartin]

Like you I see a giant question mark hanging over claims of the direct influence of New Testament writings on the Odes. I don't see any strong reason to think that anything in Paul's writings directly influenced them. I am more willing to see a common constellation of ideas that fed into both Odes and Paul (and John) though.

A slight nuance to this and what was mentioned above (lack of name Jesus means it predates Paul's gospel)
There's no reason the Odes couldn't have been parallel with Paul's gospel in time and perhaps representing one of the other streams Paul mentions as either opponents or compatriots (Apollos). Did Paul himself emerge from such a stream? The Odes would seem to support that possibility

An interesting thing I read in Lattke was in Ode 33
"And through me you will be saved and become blessed. I am your judge;
And they who have put me on shall not be falsely accused"
A one letter difference would replace 'judge' with 'armor' - which reminds of Ephesians (and the theme of armor in other OT and Wisdom)

[neilgodfrey]

A slight nuance to this and what was mentioned above (lack of name Jesus means it predates Paul's gospel)
There's no reason the Odes couldn't have been parallel with Paul's gospel in time and perhaps representing one of the other streams Paul mentions as either opponents or compatriots (Apollos). Did Paul himself emerge from such a stream? The Odes would seem to support that possibility

An interesting thing I read in Lattke was in Ode 33
"And through me you will be saved and become blessed. I am your judge;
And they who have put me on shall not be falsely accused"
A one letter difference would replace 'judge' with 'armor' - which reminds of Ephesians (and the theme of armor in other OT and Wisdom)

They are a tantalizing collection, certainly.

Consistent with the imagery of Odes would be an author or group of authors giving a literary narrator or prophet or apostle a spiritually symbolic name, like, say, "Paul", perhaps. That sound outrageously over the top to many but the possibility cannot be denied outright on the evidence we have.

[davidmartin]

well, Paul hardly represents an entire movement. he is just a guy putting himself forward as a representative and trying to be the leader and he's constantly being opposed for what he says. there's no reason to think he has any approval from those who came before him. that's hardly a sound basis to try and reconstruct Christian origins. If on the other hand what he says is contrasted with an independent writing like the Odes then that's different, they can be used to work out what was shared in common and what wasn't. even if Paul didn't have that approval then he is still a source of information . I'm all for being dispassionate about Paul and treating him as a theologian without the theatrics of his speaking 'Gods word' which evidently were not there until his writings were considered scripture post Marcion or whenever it was. He is some early leader and one amongst many it's just his writings survive and the others do not

[Irish1975]

An interesting thing I read in Lattke was in Ode 33
"And through me you will be saved and become blessed. I am your judge;
And they who have put me on shall not be falsely accused"

The Odes have quite a lot of participatory mysticism, ie, the kind of thing Paul means when he uses language like "in Christ," "Christ in me," "dying in Christ," etc.

Funny how generations of mainstream scholars examining what Hellenistic Jews meant by "the messiah" manage to ignore the Odes, which express exactly the apolitical, mystical, otherworldly, dreamlike christology as what we find in Paul and John.

[andrewcriddle]

It may be worth noting the 3rd? century Untitled Text

And the stretching out of his hands is the manifestation of the cross. The stretching out of the cross is the ennead on the right side and on the left. The sprouting of the cross is the incomprehensible man.

Andrew Criddle

[John2]

If the idea of dying "for our sins" pertains to the lack of offerings in the Torah for intentional sins that lead to divine punishment, what about Yom Kippur? Three offerings are made for all sins on that day (a bull for the high priest and two goats for all Israel), so why is the idea of dying "for our sins" necessary? Does it only make "sense" in the absence of the Temple or if the Yom Kippur sin offerings are regarded as being made improperly? Otherwise it seems like Yom Kippur covers all sins.

Lev. 16:16:

So he shall make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the impurities and rebellious acts of the Israelites in regard to all their sins.

Then he [the high priest] is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities and rebellious acts of the Israelites in regard to all their sins. He is to put them on the goat’s head and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man appointed for the task. The goat will carry on itself all their iniquities into a solitary place, and the man will release it into the wilderness.

It would make more "sense" to me if the dying "for our sins" idea pertained to Yom KIppur. In other words, shouldn't the Yom Kippur sin offerings be enough to prepare people for the End Time? Even the same suffering (anah) is commanded for Yom Kippur as that endured by the Suffering Servant in Is. 53:4 and 7:

Surely he took on our infirmities and carried our sorrows; yet we considered him stricken by God, struck down and afflicted ...

He was oppressed and afflicted ...

Cf. Lev. 16:29:

And it shall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves ...

So why is Jesus likened to a Passover lamb when that is not a sin offering?

Hebrews appears to wrestle with this dying "for our sins" nonsense, but it appears to tie it to all sacrifices rather than to those made on Yom Kippur.

Heb. 9:9-14:

... the gifts and sacrifices being offered were unable to cleanse the conscience of the worshiper. They consist only in food and drink and special washings—external regulations imposed until the time of reform.

But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made by hands and is not a part of this creation. He did not enter by the blood of goats and calves, but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus securing eternal redemption.

For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that their bodies are clean, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, purify our consciences from works of death ...

This is such crazy talk to me (including the OT sacrifices it is based on), but is there any way to make "sense" of this dying "for our sins" idea in light of Yom Kippur? If Yom Kippur covers all sins, why did anyone need to think of themselves as being an alternative sin offering? I suppose there could be something to it if there is no Temple or an improperly functioning one, but in the former case it seems like it would be better to create a situation in which the Yom Kippur sin offerings could be made rather than to seek to suffer and die for anyone's sins.

For example, I think it would be better to be a little flexible and rebuild a Temple (or an altar) somewhere else in Jerusalem or Israel than engage in these kinds of alternative sacrifice ideas. This is already being done at least for Passover now, if I recall correctly (and which appears to bother many people, which seems weird to me from a religious perspective. Why would any believer not want to see God's commandments performed? This whole dying "for our sins" idea seems to have somehow made everything backasswards).