Odes of Solomon 42 precedes Mark 15:29: the original "way" of the cross

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
davidmartin
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Odes of Solomon 42 precedes Mark 15:29: the original "way" of the cross

Post by davidmartin »

one might suggest the odes are more concerned with the wood or tree referring to the genesis account of Eden (a bit like Revelation), more than the Paul style cross... although of course the Ode would in this case be making the connection! IE the tree of life was the cross
Did Paul derive his cross theology from such origins? That's my hunch that he did. The Odes is like the window into the pre-Paul era
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1054
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Odes of Solomon 42 precedes Mark 15:29: the original "way" of the cross

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:57 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:32 am
MrMacSon wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:48 am Regarding, " the word...‘wood’ refers frequently in Syriac literature to the Cross", one would need to know what Syriac literature, when it might have been written, and what [texts] it was or might have been referring to, to properly contextualise that statement.
An explanation of the way "wood" became a term for the cross in the case of Paul's letter to the Galatians:

https://vridar.org/2020/06/12/how-paul- ... criptures/
Sure, but the-shape-of-the-cross was likely a later development, and widespread use of and reverence for the term 'cross' was likely to have been, too. The root Greek word for 'cross' in the Pauline epistles is stauros, and the Greek words for crucified in the Pauline epistles and the canonical Gospels are essentially versions of 'staurified' ie. staked.

So, one might argue that, rather than " 'wood' became a term for the cross", cross became a term for wood (or tree), and cross was at some later (but not too much later) period retroverted onto wood or tree and the notion of crucifixion ...
Exactly.
I'll once again claim that it all started with the odd STROS or SRTOS in Thomas, which got interpreted as stauros - which is a stake, and nothing but a stake.
And if one reads the canonicals, that's the only word used in all of the NT save for Acts 2:23 - προσπήξαντες (having "crucified") - where there is one unique deviation from that word

And if one follows the narrative and events in the final hours of Jesus, the canonicals also unmistakably talk of impaling Jesus

https://www.academia.edu/45655884/The_G ... n_content_

That gruesome image got changed to dignifiedly dying on a cross, full of grace and quite relaxed really. And then the rewriting of history got perfected by equating the cross to wood or tree just like Mac states, so the link with the Tanakh could be made.
I wonder whether Marcion already had his IS die, or that Mark started it - but his words had to cease to exist so they could "speak in his name" and silence everyone else

Stauros is the Greek word, in Latin that became crux - yet the concept of pretending the stauros to be a cross started before that, and countless attempts were undertaken to make it all tick
davidmartin
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Odes of Solomon 42 precedes Mark 15:29: the original "way" of the cross

Post by davidmartin »

it's too easy to get bogged down in this area
the concept that the cross was a sacrificial atonement for sins is the later phenomenon which has the effect of downplaying the earlier stratum. making a big deal out of whether it was a cross or a tree to connect with the Tanakh somehow that just misses the giant revision of a new atonement doctrine built upon previous theological iterations but a derivative of whatever came before. i think what we are dealing with is a re-contextualising of the earliest imprint of Christianity to what we are familiar with and that this earliest imprint did not have the atonement doctrine at it's inception
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1054
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Odes of Solomon 42 precedes Mark 15:29: the original "way" of the cross

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:00 am it's too easy to get bogged down in this area
the concept that the cross was a sacrificial atonement for sins is the later phenomenon which has the effect of downplaying the earlier stratum. making a big deal out of whether it was a cross or a tree to connect with the Tanakh somehow that just misses the giant revision of a new atonement doctrine built upon previous theological iterations but a derivative of whatever came before. i think what we are dealing with is a re-contextualising of the earliest imprint of Christianity to what we are familiar with and that this earliest imprint did not have the atonement doctrine at it's inception
Emphasis mine.
Yes, I think so too. There is progress and evolution to be seen:

1. Jesus sayings
2. Jesus narrative
3. Jesus biography
4. Jesus death
5. Jesus birth
6. Jesus resurrection
7. Jesus "gone forever"

Those are the necessary steps that were taken, with the death of Jesus initially "making an end to his words". Did it have a political goal or was it just a natural thing, or both?
Then the resurrection came into play, and essentially the same problem arose again: people claiming that "Jesus said" just like they're seeing Elvis (there seems to be a lot less of that lately LOL) - and the being taken up into heaven solved that one: that closed the book

All that could have happened without giving meaning to his death; but only one thing would affect it, and that would be its "iconisation". Needless to say, the church fathers desperately trying to fulfil Scripture also added to it
davidmartin
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Odes of Solomon 42 precedes Mark 15:29: the original "way" of the cross

Post by davidmartin »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:56 am
davidmartin wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:00 am it's too easy to get bogged down in this area
the concept that the cross was a sacrificial atonement for sins is the later phenomenon which has the effect of downplaying the earlier stratum. making a big deal out of whether it was a cross or a tree to connect with the Tanakh somehow that just misses the giant revision of a new atonement doctrine built upon previous theological iterations but a derivative of whatever came before. i think what we are dealing with is a re-contextualising of the earliest imprint of Christianity to what we are familiar with and that this earliest imprint did not have the atonement doctrine at it's inception
Emphasis mine.
Yes, I think so too. There is progress and evolution to be seen:

1. Jesus sayings
2. Jesus narrative
3. Jesus biography
4. Jesus death
5. Jesus birth
6. Jesus resurrection
7. Jesus "gone forever"

Those are the necessary steps that were taken, with the death of Jesus initially "making an end to his words". Did it have a political goal or was it just a natural thing, or both?
Then the resurrection came into play, and essentially the same problem arose again: people claiming that "Jesus said" just like they're seeing Elvis (there seems to be a lot less of that lately LOL) - and the being taken up into heaven solved that one: that closed the book

All that could have happened without giving meaning to his death; but only one thing would affect it, and that would be its "iconisation". Needless to say, the church fathers desperately trying to fulfil Scripture also added to it
when you have a scenario where specific beliefs are held up as orthodox as a kind of litmus test, then there's always the possibility that in actual fact those who dissented were closer to the original incarnation. The only reason it makes any sense to talk this way, obviously, is when this orthodoxy becomes dominant - but at some earlier date it would have been the proto-orthodox who were the dissenters. Whatever one feels about it or whichever side a person takes, I think it's quite fascinating. This fascination is probably what motivates me
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1054
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Odes of Solomon 42 precedes Mark 15:29: the original "way" of the cross

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Fri Jun 25, 2021 12:45 am when you have a scenario where specific beliefs are held up as orthodox as a kind of litmus test, then there's always the possibility that in actual fact those who dissented were closer to the original incarnation. The only reason it makes any sense to talk this way, obviously, is when this orthodoxy becomes dominant - but at some earlier date it would have been the proto-orthodox who were the dissenters. Whatever one feels about it or whichever side a person takes, I think it's quite fascinating. This fascination is probably what motivates me
Beautiful, isn't it?
It doesn't really matter what was said when by who, all that matters is what remains of it.
Reality perhaps does exist, but in all honesty I doubt that anyone can perceive it, let alone that a small group can experience it in the same way

Truths? Those don't exist, any truth is only an opinion, and a Truth is a majority opinion. Go to China, and you'll find that Christianity is insignificant (I think)

I think it's fascinating too, and that's the reason why I dig into it while it is of little interest to me. Then again I've achieved most of my Thomas goals and I like to do a bit of stuff on the side. But the more I read of the CF's and like-minded people, the bigger the smoking gun gets LOL. There is a Threat to Churchianity right from the start, and it is still there, after all those centuries - and it permeates it and most of its followers.
Yet with everything readily available online for free, I think the nut will be cracked anytime soon. Before 2050?
Post Reply