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: 1588
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Post by davidmartin »

Yep, mid-1st century. Really the best book to get hold of is Lattke's commentary in the Hermeneia series there's nothing else quite like it

Here's some quotes "The Odes originated in an era when early Christianity was still largely embedded among the varieties of early Judaism"
The author would have been been brought up in Jewish culture. So the Odes appear a product of some form of "Messianic Jewish Christianity" - exactly what we might expect to find as the source of this thing in the first century. It fits

I accept that seeking one 'single source' is dubious and it might be better to say we have found one 'of the sources'. There's plenty of room to talk about other influences (those more Jewish, those more Gnostic, etc)

A date before 130 is suggested if the epistle of barnabas quotes from them which Lattke argues it does. The evidence begins to pile up they are early 2nd century at the latest, but how much earlier? Lattke leaves it there but he acknowledges "The dependence of the Odes, or their relation to, the Johannine corpus, all seven of the Pauline epistles, the synoptic gospes and possibly Revelation" yet the Odes never quotes from any of these, so which way is the dependency? What is the 'relation to'? I simply argue it was that the Odes were first. Why not?

Dating the Odes that early sheds light on another mystery - the apostle. That he created his gospel system out of the previously existing fellowship that's found in the Odes, adapting or changing things, keeping things the same, whatever
All this becomes possible when the Odes are dated correctly (or the possibility seriously considered!)

As for the Gnostic question. Helmut Koester wrote "The Odes of Solomon may indeed not deserve the title of a 'Gnostic Hymnbook' but the Gnostic origin and character of a considerable portion of its imagery and metaphorical language cannot be doubted". So they both are and are not Gnostic - at the same time. They are Jewish and Christian at the same time as well. This doesn't fit any of the categories scholars have created, because I think they never came across the actual, real thing before they don't know what to make of it. So yeah, they are quite Gnostic also quite orthodox, the Messiah comes to give out salvific knowledge, but so does Jesus half the time in the gospels.

That's what I think
I used the 2 Syriac MS as source, the Egyptian Pistis Sophia and the Greek Ode 11, but it's mainly survived in Syriac
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 »

(thread continued here)
davidmartin wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:02 am The reaction of the Chrestians to the apostle may be in the Ode 33, if that connection is made but it's possible?
Grace ran then She returned to expel the corruptor and She descended on him to bring him to nothing
for he destroyed to destruction what was before him and he corrupts in everything that he does

What is highly ironic in that deviant reading is the sheer amount of similarity in the Odes to the apostle's own teachings, that would make his denial in Galatians definitely false, he did know the founders and they probably kicked him out! Once on the loose he was free to create his personality cult, I see his methods as abusive threatening one moment then begging then laying down his laws and so on
You're getting to me now, with your bloody Odes

6 And speaking water came to my lips, from the living spring of the un-possessive Lord 7 and I drank and became drunk on the living water that does not die

That is Thomasine AF, although the problem is that he is spiritual, and that there is great similarity across all spiritualities

On average it's way too Lordy for me, spirituality doesn't crave to be with a supreme being, it just thanks it for the nice stuff. The praising is too Psalmy to me, it's too religious, with a Judaic smell too. And then we have stuff like

8 By Him the eternals spoke one to another and they who were silent acquired speech 9 and from Him came love and harmony and they spoke one to another what He was to them

and I'm all over on the spiritual side again

8 I dressed in undying by the hand of His Name and I stripped off dying by His Grace!
9 Death died, right in front of my face and Hell by my Word was destroyed! 10 And there arose deathless Life in the land of the Lord, that was known to His believers and given without cost to all who trust in Him

And that is the other side of the coin, where it's all about believing and trusting, and the Evil of the Satan that is Religion creeps back in again: this is nothing but an empty carrot, a handing over, a bending of the knee, a bow deep down to the ground, and it is nothing like spirituality.
Without cost hey? We know what is without cost these days, all these free apps on your phone and such...

8 You, my God – falsehood and death are not in your mouth but your will is perfection 9 Vanity you do not know, and neither does it know you 10 Error you do not know, and neither does it know you 11 But ignorance appeared like dust and like the scum of the sea 12 and the vain ones thought it great and became like it and were emptied 13 But those who knew understood and those who thought, were not polluted by their thoughts because they were in the mind of the Most High 14 And they laughed at those walking in error 15 and instead they spoke the truth from the breath that the Most High breathed into them 16 Glory and great beauty to His Name

And again, just plain religion right here

And right after, immediately succeeding this:

1 A cup of milk was offered to me and in the sweetness of the Lord’s kindness, I drank 2 The Son is the cup, and He who was milked is the Father, and She who milked Him is the Spirit of Holiness 3 Because His breasts, they were full and it was undesirable, for His milk to spurt uselessly out 4 so the Spirit of Holiness opened Her womb and She mixed the milk of the Father’s two breasts 5 She gave the mixture to the world without them knowing and those who receive it are in the perfection of Her right hand 6 In her womb a young woman caught it, received conception and gave birth and the young woman became a loving mother

And again I'm in the other side of the fence, and I remember for Thomas put colostrum in the dough, and for that got mistaken for leaven, and even translated as such by all falsifiers

But, let's have a look at 33 then:

11 For the Grace of God I speak in you and by my hands will you be saved - and you will be blessed! 12 I am your judge and you who put me on will not be unfairly judged but gain incorruptibility in the age that is to come!
13 Walk in me my chosen and I will make known my ways to those who seek me and I will give them cause to trust upon my Name

That's how it ends, and again I see spirituality and religion, and perhaps Paul could be meant but then who would this she be? Salome, Mary Magdalene?

I doubt it

I think the Odes is unique david, and I understand why you're attracted to it. It is a mixture to me, of Psalms, Thomas and Chrestianity-Christianity, it's right on the brink of it all - and perhaps it really is
davidmartin
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Post by davidmartin »

ah well, they're a bit rustic but i like 'em
there's some advanced ideas in them under the surface
i guess if that's the early literature no wonder mark had to be so entertaining

That is Thomasine AF, although the problem is that he is spiritual, and that there is great similarity across all spiritualities
Another Thomasine thing is the bridal chamber in 41 and reunion of the opposites
On average it's way too Lordy for me, spirituality doesn't crave to be with a supreme being, it just thanks it for the nice stuff. The praising is too Psalmy to me, it's too religious, with a Judaic smell too. And then we have stuff like
ah that's the smell of incense resin from the fields of Nubia
but i think this Lord stuff is where the apostle gets it from. It is Lordy, but i think the odes are trying to define the lord every chance, how they see it. they define and praise together which is more advanced way to do it

so the apostle's definition is sometimes the same, other times all fear based and ends up undermining the odes' definition considerably
he says God is angry, really pissed off with these sinful worms he created. that's not the odes teaching. just not the same
did the odes people dare to disagree with him? i think they whomp his ass. Ode 38 is the big ass kicker
I dressed in undying by the hand of His Name and I stripped off dying by His Grace!
9 Death died, right in front of my face and Hell by my Word was destroyed! 10 And there arose deathless Life in the land of the Lord, that was known to His believers and given without cost to all who trust in Him
but its already occurred in the past. whatever the personified death is, its dead
hell doesn't exist (ok Sheol in the MS but same difference) no pagan wrath of God in the odes
all this differs from the apostle's faffing with the formula - but squint a bit and they're similar, he got it from these guys i bet anything on it
And again I'm in the other side of the fence, and I remember for Thomas put colostrum in the dough, and for that got mistaken for leaven, and even translated as such by all falsifiers
Yep constant milk references in the odes Ode 19 upset some i read, just the rustic side of nature coming into view. they dont seem ashamed by any of it. Thomas agreed thats handy to know, i remember seeing that thread
For the Grace of God I speak in you and by my hands will you be saved - and you will be blessed! 12 I am your judge and you who put me on will not be unfairly judged but gain incorruptibility in the age that is to come!
13 Walk in me my chosen and I will make known my ways to those who seek me and I will give them cause to trust upon my Name
A likely allusion to a female preacher but the main focus is this Grace, a personified piece of the one God (which Paul also took)
i recon their theology was, the son, grace, wisdom, are personified like distinct beings but they're part of the single unity really
anyway, as for Paul there's a load of what i call 'defenses' in the odes about what's said against them
like 'preaching falsehood', 'being wrong', 'defiled' and so on, stuff the apostle said against them
and Paul's own defences match up what the Odes say about him, like corrupting people, boasting, being an anti-christ or whatever

Magdalene, the reason is the familiarity the author claims
things like 'i walked with him', 'anything i didn't know he revealed to me', 'i wasn't wrong about anything'
i had enough and decided the odes dont sound like a mans writing so who else, it made sense to me any mystical group leader would make damn sure his chief apostle was prophetic and could wipe the floor with opponents. the odes just seemed to fit i'm not trying to sell books off her name or anything like that if she's popular it's not my fault

but this Paul stuff in the odes isn't my main focus at all, as a theory, i dont plan to write anything about it cause to me it distracts from the spirituality to have him present i want to write some spiritual stuff but no plans to mention this aspect and i wasn't going to but if it helps in the origins quest could be another theory there, at the end of the day every single permutation of theory needs it's outing no matter how outlandish, like Jesus was a magic mushroom, so to not have this theory exist seems wrong when its not really that crazy it was just hidden out of view?
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: Thu Mar 23, 2023 3:26 pm Another Thomasine thing is the bridal chamber in 41 and reunion of the opposites
The "bridal chamber" is one of those words that don't exist. best way to check for that is via Middle Liddell, as they don't contain any NT stuff - if they can help it.
Here, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Dnumfw%2Fn:

νυμφών 1 νύμφη

the bridechamber, NTest.
1 νυμφών, ῶνος, ὁ,

Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889

That's it?! Yup, that's it.
So where does it come from? Well, like many other crazy words, it comes from Thomas - he was a real joker.

104. they said to IS : come! and we pray today and we Fast. IS said : who/at? Indeed is the sin I have made-be, Or have they become-strong to me in what? Rather Whenever "should" the Bridegroom come-forth in the Nymphone Then let! they Fast and let! they pray

The answer is in LSJ full blown version: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Dnumfw%2Fn

νυμφ-ών , ῶνος, ὁ,
A.bridechamber, LXXTo.6.14, Ev.Matt.9.15, D.Chr.7.145, Hld.7.8, PLond.3.964.19 (ii/iii A.D.).
II. temple of Dionysus, Demeter, and Persephone, Paus.2.11.3.
III. a kind of νυμφαία, Ps.-Dsc.3.132.

Pausanius, Description of Greece

[3] On the direct road from Sicyon to Phlius, on the left of the road and just about ten stades from it, is a grove called Pyraea, and in it a sanctuary of Hera Protectress and the Maid. Here the men celebrate a festival by themselves, giving up to the women the temple called Nymphon for the purposes of their festival. In the Nymphon are images of Dionysus, Demeter, and the Maid, with only their faces exposed. The road to Titane is sixty stades long, and too narrow to be used by carriages drawn by a yoke.

I reckon you have a healthy imagination david: "Whenever "should" the Bridegroom come-forth in the Nymphone Then let! they Fast and let! they pray" - you can appreciate the graphic image there, can you? And the masterfully cunning lingo ;-)
but this Paul stuff in the odes isn't my main focus at all, as a theory, i dont plan to write anything about it cause to me it distracts from the spirituality to have him present i want to write some spiritual stuff but no plans to mention this aspect and i wasn't going to but if it helps in the origins quest could be another theory there, at the end of the day every single permutation of theory needs it's outing no matter how outlandish, like Jesus was a magic mushroom, so to not have this theory exist seems wrong when its not really that crazy it was just hidden out of view?
I hear you - but careful now. I had the same thing with Thomas, I don't care about any of this Jesus-rubbish. and after having finally read the NT it is mind boggling how anyone could fall for that garbage.
But there's no place for both the Jesus of the Nt and the IS of Thomas, it is exactly like Thomas' two masters:

there is not strength of a slave to serve two slaveowners, Or he will make be Honour the one and the other one he will make be "Hubrize" him

There's only one pedestal david, and currently it's taken. And I plan to provide a vacancy there
davidmartin
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Post by davidmartin »

lol, it sure is fun that deviant reading. wonder how your getting on with it

But if you think the Chrestians can be summed up as being anti-Judaic - then by the same logic the Chrestians were strongly anti-Christian as well (by disagreeing with the apostle's gospel and his ministry). That's a piece of authenticity in their favour isn't it

But it's also kind of bizarre, if they show a Chrestian church in it's infancy that looks and sounds exactly as expected in so many other Christian ways, and if the author is an apostle, how can they be anti-Christian? Then the opposite is the case, so depending how you define it they are both. This is crazy, it does not make any logical sense. Welcome to the "good news"

The funny thought is - apart from looking Jewish, Christian and Gnostic at the same time, they are also anti-Christian at the same time as well, and anti-Judaic and anti-Gnostic all depending on the observer. They exist in a completely impossible category that shouldn't be possible even to imagine let alone actually exist. Who on earth could have written such a thing? Someone who knew their stuff, who learned from the freaking master

This may explain why they've been ignored, they just are too unusual to be studied, the scholars just give up and can't handle them, they haven't got the balls. Not even 1% of the balls a conjectured Mary had, she trounces the lot of them, totally smoking them into the dust. Chooom, they're gone, outclassed, outgunned. Not a leg to stand on. Story waiting to be told
davidmartin
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Post by davidmartin »

I reckon you have a healthy imagination david: "Whenever "should" the Bridegroom come-forth in the Nymphone Then let! they Fast and let! they pray" - you can appreciate the graphic image there, can you? And the masterfully cunning lingo
What, it's graphic? we wouldn't be here if it wasn't! with a name like 'nymphion' it pretty much says it all
but hang on a moment, the bridegroom always 'comes forth' in the bridal chamber (sometimes before he even gets into it). couldn't it be saying if the bridgegroom leaves it, then he is in trouble? he's left the bride on her own in there? it' doesn't matter probably i guess the main point is this sexual element is pretty much normal everyday life i think, it's normal. what's not normal is the idea its somehow dirty or unclean. That attitude has caused untold misery and suffering and abuse. Nice to see the IS in Thomas integrating it back properly, the Odes do that too. Zinner at his finest:
As noted above, the scribe was confused when copying this verse, first writing ‘my limbs’ but then changing it to ‘his limbs’. While the scribe correctly settled for ‘his limbs’, the rest of the verse indicates that confusion lingered. The statement ‘his limbs are with him’ at best sounds like a tautology or pleonasm, but the lines that follow indicate the emendation ‘his limbs are with me’ is required. The scene is one of the Odist hanging on in passionate love to the limbs of the divine body. The background is metaphorical interpretation of Song of Songs passages such as Song 7:11, ‘I am my beloved’s, and his desire is toward me’
This is quite normal mysticism, classic example of it really. Thankfully this stuff is present if it was lacking it would be a bit of a disappointment
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: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:16 am lol, it sure is fun that deviant reading. wonder how your getting on with it
There's nothing deviant about it, it simply is in the text, right from the start:

ⲁ ϥ ⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ
did he come forth

"From" in Coptic is odd, as it literally says "outward in", ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ ̆̆ it's a composite proposition, and Thomas plays with it.
Yes, the sower comes forth, ejaculates - that's just in the dictionary, I'm not making anything up, and anyone can verify that but everyone seems to be terribly afraid that I am correct in my findings

https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C840

Then click through from Crum, and there it is, bottom left: 'come, go forth, be displayed'
But if you think the Chrestians can be summed up as being anti-Judaic - then by the same logic the Chrestians were strongly anti-Christian as well (by disagreeing with the apostle's gospel and his ministry). That's a piece of authenticity in their favour isn't it
They surely would have become such, yes. And Philip already gives an indication of it - and I am pretty sure that all the stories about Christian persecutions were not about them at all, but about how Chrestians were persecuted. The ferocity of Philip makes much more sense to the alleged bravery displayed
But it's also kind of bizarre, if they show a Chrestian church in it's infancy that looks and sounds exactly as expected in so many other Christian ways, and if the author is an apostle, how can they be anti-Christian? Then the opposite is the case, so depending how you define it they are both. This is crazy, it does not make any logical sense. Welcome to the "good news"
Can you define "they" please, and author of what?
The funny thought is - apart from looking Jewish, Christian and Gnostic at the same time, they are also anti-Christian at the same time as well, and anti-Judaic and anti-Gnostic all depending on the observer. They exist in a completely impossible category that shouldn't be possible even to imagine let alone actually exist. Who on earth could have written such a thing? Someone who knew their stuff, who learned from the freaking master

This may explain why they've been ignored, they just are too unusual to be studied, the scholars just give up and can't handle them, they haven't got the balls. Not even 1% of the balls a conjectured Mary had, she trounces the lot of them, totally smoking them into the dust. Chooom, they're gone, outclassed, outgunned. Not a leg to stand on. Story waiting to be told
I can't make sense of the NHL, if that is what you mean by "they" - but I can very well place it all against the background of Chrestian origins, and Christian ones - because it contains both, yet no Jewishness, no nomen sacra that came after their own origins
davidmartin
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: New translation of the Odes of Solomon

Post by davidmartin »

They is the Odes, the deviant reading is that they fell out with the apostle and were in opposition to him, to the core they opposed him as Ode 38. yet they, the Odes, are thoroughly Chrestian as can be. If anyone is on a pedestal it's the apostle, and he shouldn't be there. He wasn't innermost disciple. This flies in the face of stock Christianity so much as to appear anti-Christian, but it's not. It's the truth of it. The Odes don't split the covenant in two, there's only one covenant in them. The apostle comes along and adds his inconsistent, contradictory theology into the mix without sanction or blessing from the originals without even mentioning the idiots who came later, but he took a whole lot more from them than he admits. I don't care. I've said all i want to say
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: Fri Mar 24, 2023 4:24 am They is the Odes, the deviant reading is that they fell out with the apostle and were in opposition to him, to the core they opposed him as Ode 38. yet they, the Odes, are thoroughly Chrestian as can be. If anyone is on a pedestal it's the apostle, and he shouldn't be there. He wasn't innermost disciple. This flies in the face of stock Christianity so much as to appear anti-Christian, but it's not. It's the truth of it. The Odes don't split the covenant in two, there's only one covenant in them. The apostle comes along and adds his inconsistent, contradictory theology into the mix without sanction or blessing from the originals without even mentioning the idiots who came later, but he took a whole lot more from them than he admits. I don't care. I've said all i want to say

Ode 36

1 The Spirit of the Lord, She rested upon me and She lifted me to Heaven 2 and She set me on my feet in the Heaven of the Lord, in front of His perfection and His Glory 3 While I was giving praise by composing His songs, She gave birth to me in front of the Lord’s face!
And while a Son of Man I was I was named the illuminated, the Son of God!
4 While I praised along with those who praise, I was also great among the great 5 for like the greatness of the Most High so She made me and like His making new so He renewed me 6 He anointed me from His own perfection and I became one of His close ones 7 and my mouth was opened like a cloud of dew and a flood of righteousness gushed out of my heart, 8 for my offering was in peace and I was established by the Spirit that guides Hallelujah

I hadn't made it this far yet, I have a full plate since a few days.
But this is... astonishing. This is pure Thomas AND hardcore Philip AND very Tanakh - and I'll grant you your Judaic titbits now

There's an Error in the NHL as well, you likely know of it. The deceiver in 38 could be Paul, it could be just metaphorical, dunno
Post Reply