Re: New translation of the Odes of Solomon
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2023 1:19 am
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
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