New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Post by davidmartin »

So, this is what i've been up to last year, it's now finished and uploaded
Translation notes and commentary are not done yet but will appear at some point. There's a ton of issues simply not addressed without these but after all the work thought it best just to release it without them to begin with

No idea what will be made of this, but it's something i really wanted to do to understand what they were saying as much as possible

https://www.academia.edu/98470681/The_O ... of_Solomon
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:19 pm So, this is what i've been up to last year, it's now finished and uploaded
Translation notes and commentary are not done yet but will appear at some point. There's a ton of issues simply not addressed without these but after all the work thought it best just to release it without them to begin with

No idea what will be made of this, but it's something i really wanted to do to understand what they were saying as much as possible

https://www.academia.edu/98470681/The_O ... of_Solomon
https://www.nuhra.net/nuhra-2021

1 Open your ears and I will speak to you.
2 Give me your soul, so that I may also give you my soul.
3 The utterance of the Lord and his desires
are the holy thought he thought about his anointed one.

I certainly am not a fan of Zinner nor Mattison, whose translations are very fanciful and inaccurate, but they translate the Syriac with Anointed instead of Christ - so which word is below this, if I may inquire?
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Post by davidmartin »

Here the word in the ms, is 'messiah' the Hebrew word is same in Syriac - translating as anointed or Christ is understandable. The problem is with 'anointed' that it's merely the literal meaning of the word and does not embody the concept of a Messiah or Christ clearly to the modern reader, when the ancient reader would have known it was a technical word. So when a word is used in a technical sense i think better to use the English equivalents of the technical word. I used either 'Messiah' or 'Christ' intentionally as part of the concept of the translation so both are in there

Yes Zinner, his translation has some good ideas I accepted but not all of them. Sometimes he goes for Jewish legalistic terms like 'statutes' ie references to the law that are not quite what the text had in mind I think, it comes down to the translators understanding of 'what the text had in mind'. But it's odd he does this but then translates messiah as 'anointed' I would have thought he'd have gone for the solid Jewish word
Last edited by davidmartin on Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:42 am Here the word in the ms, is 'messiah' the Hebrew word is same in Syriac - translating as anointed or Christ is understandable. The problem is with 'anointed' that it's merely the literal meaning of the word and does not embody the concept of a Messiah or Christ clearly to the modern reader, when the ancient reader would have known it was a technical word. So when a word is used in a technical sense i think better to use the English equivalents of the technical word. I used either 'Messiah' or 'Christ' intentionally as part of the concept of the translation

This translation of the Odes of Solomon aims to be poetic and easy to comprehend while retaining the literal meaning of the words as much as possible.

Uh-huh

Ethics, morals, professionalism but above all honesty and sincerity require you to add a footnote to this tremendous interpretation, david. It is evident that "translating" Messiah with Christ places this text irrefutably in Christianity

You cannot spread this in this way without one, you are doing the exact same as what Guillaumont et al did with Thomas: distribute a minor edition that contains falsified words without having a note to that, while promising to come to with a note complete version later.
Which they never did, of course - and now we are all stuck with their falsification of the parable of the colostrum (which they made say "leaven"), the logion of people living in separation without realising that they're stick (the well, the well!) and so on

Of course you are free to do what you want david
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Post by davidmartin »

There is a need for footnotes, for sure. No plans to not do this!

What I meant by 'literal' is to try and stick to the text. Like the genders of words and the idioms, so 'by his hand' instead of 'through him' and things like that. Even if not grammatically correct English, leave it. Yes also the dictionary definitions of words.... but ...... technical words like this one are a problem

If I was trying to make Christian's happy I would translate every occurrence of 'messiah' as 'Christ'. I didn't do that, both are there.
I think translating as 'anointed' just masks the problem it doesn't make it go away
The problem is not solved by how to translate the word, its solved by the text itself explaining what it means.... what do they say it means?

Here's what I mean, I've read what Christians say about the Odes. Many like them but some of the critics have said things like 'it's another Jesus not our one', and when this other bunch decided to set some to music I noticed they injected/added words not there that magically made them stock Pauline Christianity, since the Odes lack an idea of a sacrifice for sin for example. They don't even mention sin! Do you see what I mean? It's more than just this one word how it's translated, the concept is there, but not exactly what it means. By keeping Christ/Messiah you keep the concept so it can be defined by what the text says it means
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Post by davidmartin »

Here's the problem in a nutshell
(Which does not exist in your Thomas work you're lucky!)
Although why is 'Christ' automatically 'Christian'? What is 'Christian'?

Option 1 - Translate 'anointed'
Problem 1 - everyone with knowledge of this stuff will know it would be 'messiah' or 'christ' in Hebrew/Greek, or some nomina sacra. They know this!
They're going to in their head read it as referring to the concept - defeating the object of translating anointed in the first place!
Problem 2 - people without knowledge will just gloss over it and not perceive the meaning at all 'what the heck is anointed?', but these same people have seen life of brian (messiah) and familiar with the term 'Christ'. It does them a disservice
It's totally inconsistent depending on the level of knowledge of the reader - a bad compromise

Option 2 - Translate 'Messiah'
That's ok, but the same word got translated 'Christ' in Greek and the concept developed with this particular, familiar name
So it's kind of ok, but also not, if the Odes are in the thick of this which they are

Option 3- Translate 'Christ'
Also ok, but it then misses out the Jewish name for the concept, and isn't in keeping with the Jewish flavour of the Odes as a whole

In the end using both seems like a good compromise that's the least problematic, but it doesn't I agree solve the problem entirely nor can it
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:33 am Here's the problem in a nutshell
(Which does not exist in your Thomas work you're lucky!)
I have a fully normalised translation, meaning that I had to pick one single English word for each Coptic word. So instead of fooling around with multiple translations for one and the same word, as you obviously do, it was clear to me from the beginning that such is absolutely hopeless, inaccurate, and unacceptable
Although why is 'Christ' automatically 'Christian'? What is 'Christian'?

Option 1 - Translate 'anointed'
Problem 1 - everyone with knowledge of this stuff will know it would be 'messiah' or 'christ' in Hebrew/Greek, or some nomina sacra. They know this!
They're going to in their head read it as referring to the concept - defeating the object of translating anointed in the first place!
Problem 2 - people without knowledge will just gloss over it and not perceive the meaning at all 'what the heck is anointed?', but these same people have seen life of brian (messiah) and familiar with the term 'Christ'. It does them a disservice
It's totally inconsistent depending on the level of knowledge of the reader - a bad compromise
Surely not, that's ludicrous. Who's your audience? My audience is 99% "average Joe's" but regardless, the content of a text should fit its context. When in doubt, the more neutral definition of a word should be used
Option 2 - Translate 'Messiah'
That's ok, but the same word got translated 'Christ' in Greek and the concept developed with this particular, familiar name
So it's kind of ok, but also not, if the Odes are in the thick of this which they are
When in doubt, the more neutral definition of a word should be used
Option 3- Translate 'Christ'
Also ok, but it then misses out the Jewish name for the concept, and isn't in keeping with the Jewish flavour of the Odes as a whole

In the end using both seems like a good compromise that's the least problematic, but it doesn't I agree solve the problem entirely nor can it
When in doubt, the more neutral definition of a word should be used

Here, try this: my translation principles and guidelines:

The five translation principles are as follows:
One word in - one word out
o For each unique Coptic word, one unique English word is picked. To illustrate this: the Lambdin translation uses two words in logion 65 - 'master' and 'owner' - for the exact same Coptic word ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ; and in logion 73 and 74 he translates that with 'Lord'; it is all very inconsistent. A translation must be precise: if a certain word is chosen as the translation of a word, don't pick another on translating its next occurrence. A true translation knows no synonyms
One word out - one word in
o For each English word there can't be any more than one single Coptic word: if e.g. ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ is translated with master, then there can be no other Coptic word that is also translated with master (Lambdin translates ⲥⲁϩ in logion 13 also with 'master'). If Thomas went through the trouble of picking a different word, then so must we. A true translation knows no homonyms
• Full normalisation is the basis for every good translation
o By combining these two goals, complete and full normalisation is achieved: the text is literally translated from Coptic into English with the absolute smallest number of changes possible; it is as close as we can get to the original text. Others might have claimed that feat, but this is the only way to achieve it: make an index of source as well as destination, and completely normalise both
Emendations must be motivated at length
o The text says what it says, period. It is cryptic, enigmatic, riddling: this is not prose, it's poetry, and full of wordplay. If one doesn't understand it, then it is not the text that is causing the problem, and it surely should not be changed, most certainly not without a solid argumentation - let alone without not even as much as a footnote. Most "scholars" like to make the text wrong in order to make themselves right, and they don't even think twice about it, let alone that they supply motivation - although there are rare exceptions to that rule.
The general advice is to read Thomas without any agenda whatsoever; just pretend it is the very first text ever read
Content determines context - not vice versa
o Thomas is unique. There is no other text like it: riddling, mystic, playing cat-and-mouse between I(H)S and the disciples, seemingly chaotic and disorderly, at first sight without much if any story that evolves. So, in order to interpret anything of what Thomas says in another context than his own, there must be unambiguous proof or evidence that said context was guaranteed to be created before his was

And what does Anointed mean really, and is that even the same as anointed? That is a very good question david, and as long as you can't answer it, 'anointed' is the only option.
When really in doubt, fall back on the literal meaning of the word: that is why my Thomas translation is so very wooden, it is a transliteration of the Coptic - because I just have no idea what it is all about, but also don't want to steer it into any direction whatsoever until I absolutely do under all circumstances. Is that the final translation? Most certainly not, but it is the very first, and the most rudimentary basis. I learned this from my Greek teacher (save for the normalised part) and have been using it ever since, and it works absolutely fantastic

I have a proposal for you: Make a Concordance of all the Syriac words, and line 'm up alfabetically.
Pick one single English word for each Syriac word, and play around till you have normalised the entire text. Yes that is a lot of work, but it is all worth it, because it will automatically drive you into the most neutral corner.
It gave me quite a few gems, such as e.g. the mustard seeds that are few, not small. What you have / hold in your hand and gets taken away is not little, but young. And so on: there is a great advantage to this disadvantage of doing all this work
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Post by davidmartin »

well, I get what you're saying though i disagree but i'm happy with the choices i made as i explained, and no changes are needed.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:55 am well, I get what you're saying though i disagree but i'm happy with the choices i made as i explained, and no changes are needed.
Each to his own
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Post by Leucius Charinus »

davidmartin wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:19 pm
Translation notes and commentary are not done yet but will appear at some point.

///

https://www.academia.edu/98470681/The_O ... of_Solomon
In the forward you write:
In the Odes I think we have a writing from the very earliest days of
Christianity and contemporary with the epistles, that is, mid first century. It is
among the very few writings which can justifiably claim such an early date.
However the WIKI page shows that there's no real consensus and that there's a range of proposed dates between the 1st and 3rd centuries.

The Odes of Solomon
are a collection of 42 odes attributed to Solomon. The Odes are generally dated to either the first century or to the second century, while a few have suggested a later date.[1][2] The original language of the Odes is thought to have been either Greek or Syriac, and the majority of scholars believe it to have been written by a Christian, likely a convert from the Essene community to Christianity, because it contains multiple similarities to writings found in Qumran.[1][3][4][5][6] Some have argued that the writer had even personally seen the Apostle John.[2] A minority of scholars have suggested a Gnostic origin, but this theory is not widely supported.[4]


Manuscript history

The earliest extant manuscripts of the Odes of Solomon date from around the end of the 3rd century and the beginning of the 4th century: the Coptic Pistis Sophia, a Latin quote of a verse of Ode 19 by Lactantius, and the Greek text of Ode 11 in Papyrus Bodmer XI. Before the 18th century, the Odes were only known through Lactantius' quotation of one verse and their inclusion in two lists of religious literature.

The British Museum purchased the Pistis Sophia (Codex Askewianus, now British Library Add MS 5114) in 1785. The Coptic manuscript, a codex of 174 leaves, was probably composed in the late 3rd century. The manuscript contains the complete text of two of the Odes, portions of two others, and what is believed to be Ode 1 (this ode is unattested in any other manuscript and may not be complete). Pistis Sophia is a Gnostic text composed in Egypt, perhaps a translation from Greek with Syrian provenance.

After the discovery of portions of the Odes of Solomon in Pistis Sophia, scholars searched to find more complete copies of these intriguing texts. In 1909, James Rendel Harris discovered a pile of forgotten leaves from a Syriac manuscript lying on a shelf in his study. Unfortunately, all he could recall was that they came from the 'neighbourhood of the Tigris'. The manuscript (Cod. Syr. 9 in the John Rylands Library) is the most complete of the extant texts of the Odes. The manuscript begins with the second strophe of the first verse of Ode 3 (the first two odes have been lost). The manuscript gives the entire corpus of the Odes of Solomon through to the end of Ode 42. Then the Psalms of Solomon (earlier Jewish religious poetry that is often bound with the later Odes) follow, until the beginning of Psalm 17:38 and the end of the manuscript has been lost. However, the Harris manuscript is a late copy — certainly no earlier than the 15th century. In 1912, F. C. Burkitt discovered an older manuscript of the Odes of Solomon in the British Museum (now British Library Add MS 14538). The Codex Nitriensis came from the Monastery of the Syrian in Wadi El Natrun, sixty miles west of Cairo. It presents Ode 17:7b to the end of Ode 42, followed by the Psalms of Solomon in one continuous numbering. Nitriensis is written in far denser script than the Harris manuscript, which often makes it illegible. However, Nitriensis is earlier than Harris by about five centuries (although Mingana dated it to the 13th century).

In 1955–6, Martin Bodmer acquired a number of manuscripts. Papyrus Bodmer XI appears to be a Greek scrap-book of Christian religious literature compiled in Egypt in the 3rd century. It includes the entirety of Ode 11 (headed ΩΔΗ ΣΟΛΟΜΩΝΤΟϹ), which includes a short section in the middle of the Ode that does not occur in the Harris version of it. Internal evidence suggests that this additional material is original to the Ode, and that the later Harris manuscript has omitted it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odes_of_Solomon


Also which of the manuscripts (or combinations of mss) is your source?

The WIKI page also makes mention that some scholars think the Odes may be related to gnosticism rather than orthodoxy.


Relation to Gnosticism
Some have doubted the orthodoxy of the Odes, suggesting that they perhaps originated from a heretical or gnostic group. This can be seen in the extensive use of the word "knowledge" (Syr. ܝܕܥܬܐ īḏa‘tâ; Gk. γνωσις gnōsis), the slight suggestion that the Saviour needed saving in Ode 8:21c (ܘܦ̈ܖܝܩܐ ܒܗܘ ܕܐܬܦܪܩ wafrîqê ḇ-haw d'eṯpreq — "and the saved (are) in him who was saved") and the image of the Father having breasts that are milked by the Holy Spirit to bring about the incarnation of Christ. In the case of "knowledge", it is always a reference to God's gift of his self-revelation, and, as the Odes are replete with enjoyment in God's good creation, they seem at odds with the gnostic concept of knowledge providing the means of release from the imperfect world. The other images are sometimes considered marks of heresy in the odist, but do have some parallel in early patristic literature.

How do you view these ideas?
Post Reply