Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

davidmartin wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:10 am The best counter to Paul is the Odes of Solomon which show the pre-Paul church he reworked into his brand of Christianity. Nothing beats a historical text no matter how good an argument is, and in the Odes there is no existential problem of sin - period. The existential problem in the Odes is ignorance

This makes his gospel implode because his overthrowing of the law is based on its only purpose to reveal an existential problem of sin ("when the law came sin sprang to life and I died"). If the pre-Paul church did not teach this then his gospel isn't the original one and what the original one said or might have said is more important than what he says because it is earlier and he is later. The best Judaizing Objection is "sorry Paul, you're late and not teaching what your predecessors did (if you are even accepted by them), I'm off to talk to them, hope they make more sense than you do!"

mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:11 am An absolutely brilliant composition on and counter to the convoluted ramblings of Paul:

https://www.academia.edu/100148463/The_ ... el_of_Paul

Teaser:

Paul: Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth …)42

Judaizing Objection: You are changing your position, we see. Had we known that you would bring in a fatalistic, Hellenistic “election” to deconstruct works of the law, we would have been more prepared. Alright, let’s begin a new argument then. So it is not truly ‘faith apart from works’ that we are arguing against, is it? We see your point, Paul.
After all, Jesus had said: think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father:
for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.43 Now you are saying that this is precisely what God has done? God has fatalistically “elected” to justify a movement of those who are too lazy to observe the law? Against a mechanical observance of the law and the mechanical generation of Jews by biological propagation, you bring in a principle of Greek fatalism? In order to save your argument from being subjugated by ours, you have wrecked it? If you bring in fatalism now, the argument of faith and works is over. Because your fatalistic decrees destroy both works and faith. You have deconstructed your own argument. It is no longer faith that justifies.
It is something before faith. It is fatalism. You have brought in “election of grace” to substitute for your ailing “justification by faith.” You almost had us convinced. Now, you have what you have always wanted - an open and shut case. Mostly shut. Had we known this, we would not have wasted so much of your time. And ours

They don’t seem to fit in the conventional schemes of early christ worship. Neither really Jewish, nor Christian, nor Gnostic, but a distant cousin of all three

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 10:16 am Yes the odes are fascinating, and raise more questions than answers. I wonder how far the similarites to NT go with terms and images: grace, salvation, fountain, drink, etc. “Grace” is a technical term in Romans, but rather generic here. A pagan like Apuleius could talk about the graciousness of Isis, for example. Grace, charm, favor, divine condescension, etc are all generic religious ideas.

The apocalyptic quality of NT texts, and their elaborate gestures at a Christ “event,” are not evident in the odes. (I say this in spite of the BS of Charlesworth, Hurtado, and other theologically motivated readers of the Odes who want to insert them into a Christian scheme and historiography. The usual apologists on this forum can spare us the silliness of refering the “orans” prayer language of Ode 42, etc being a reference or allusion to Calvary.)

As a reader, I always felt like I was witnessing someone’s private piety, thoughts, feelings. They are devotional in nature, of course. But the norm for devotional Christian literature is to make reference to Jesus or the Christ event(s) in some way, and the odes just don’t do that at all. Concepts like messiah, temple, salvation, etc seem to float in an ether of subjectivity. No dogma, no proclamation, and if there is “testimony” it is definitely “out there” and more gnostic than Christian.

So it seems to me.