Incubator escapee wiki

Odes of Solomon

Article Discussion

Template:Short description Template:Distinguish

The Odes of Solomon are a collection of 42 odes attributed to Solomon. There used to be confusion among scholars on the dating of the Odes of Solomon; however, most scholars date it to somewhere between AD 70 and 125.<ref name=":1">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref name=":2" /><ref name=":0" /> 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 Jewish Christian, very likely a convert from the Essene community to Christianity, because it contains multiple similarities to writings found in Qumran and to the Gospel of John.<ref name=":2">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref name="James H 19772">Charlesworth, James H (1977). The Odes of Solomon. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press. Template:ISBN.</ref><ref name=":3">Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref name=":1" /> Some have argued that the writer had even personally seen John the Baptist.<ref name=":0">Template:Cite journal</ref>

Some scholars have suggested a Gnostic origin, but this theory is not universally accepted.<ref name=":12">Template:Cite journal</ref>

Manuscript historyEdit

The earliest extant manuscripts of the Odes of Solomon date from around the end of the 3rd century AD and the beginning of the 4th century AD: 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. 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.

AuthorshipEdit

Language and dateEdit

Although earlier scholars thought the Odes were originally written in Greek<ref>W. Frankenburg, "Das Verständnis der Oden Salomos", Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttenstamentliche Wissenschaft 21 (Giessen, 1911).</ref> or Hebrew,<ref>H. Grimme, Die Oden Salomos: Syrisch-Hebräisch-Deutsch (Heidelberg, 1911).</ref> there is now a consensus that Syriac/Aramaic was the original language.<ref>J. R. Harris, A. Mingana, A. Vööbus, J. A. Emerton, and James H. Charlesworth</ref> Their place of origin seems likely to have been the region of Syria. Estimates of the date of composition range from the first<ref name="James H 19772"/> to the third<ref>Drijvers, Han Jan Willem (1984). East of Antioch. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum. Template:ISBN.</ref> century AD, with many settling on the second century. Some have claimed that Ode 4 discusses the closing of the temple at Leontopolis in Egypt, which would date this writing about 73 AD.<ref>Rutherford Hayes Platt The lost books of the Bible and The forgotten books of Eden (Collins-World Publishers, 1926).</ref> One of the strong arguments for an early date is the discovery of references to, and perhaps even quotations from, the Odes in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch.<ref>R. M. Grant (1944). "The Odes of Solomon and the Church of Antioch", Journal of Biblical Literature 63, pp. 363–97.</ref><ref>V. Corwin, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch, Yale Publications in Religion 1 (New Haven: Yale UP, 1960), pp. 71–80.</ref> Possible allusions were also made by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, which also supports an early date.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> The Odes have clear similarities to the Gospel of John, which suggests the writer was in the same community as where the book was written.<ref name=":12"/>

There is wide agreement that the Odes are related to the Gospel of John and the Dead Sea scrolls, thus Charlesworth concludes that the writer was an Essene convert to the Johannine community.<ref name=":3" />

Liturgical useEdit

The Odes of Solomon were, perhaps, composed for liturgical use. In the Syriac manuscripts, all of the Odes end with a hallelujah, and the Harris manuscript marks this word in the middle of an ode by the Syriac letter hê ({{#invoke:Lang|lang}}). The use of plural imperative and jussive verb-forms suggest that on occasion a congregation is being addressed. Bernard,<ref>Bernard, JH (1912). "The Odes of Solomon" in Texts and Studies VIII.</ref> Aune, Pierce<ref>Pierce, Mark (1984). "Themes in the Odes of Solomon and other early Christian writings and their baptismal character" in Ephemerides Liturgicae XCVIII".</ref> and others who have commented on the Odes find in them clear early baptismal imagery — water is an ever-present theme (floods, drinking the living waters, drowning and the well-spring) as is the language of conversion and initiation. Charlesworth has led the criticism of this view.<ref name="James H 19772"/>

ThemesEdit

EvangelismEdit

The Odes reflect a surprising emphasis on spreading the knowledge of God, and conversion of others.<ref>Odes of Solomon 6; 10.3</ref>Template:Disputed inline

According to James H. Charlesworth, "the key characteristic in these hymns is a joyous tone of thanksgiving for the advent of the Messiah who had been promised (cf. Ode 7:1-6; 41:3-7) and for the present experience of eternal life and love from and for the Beloved (3:1-9; 11:1-24; 23:1-3; 26:1-7; 40:1-6)".<ref>James H. Charlesworth (1985), The Old Testament Pseudoepigrapha, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company Inc., Volume 2, Template:ISBN (Vol. 1), Template:ISBN (Vol. 2), p. 425.</ref>

TheologyEdit

Though there is some dispute, according to Chadwick the Odes are likely part of the proto-Orthodox Christian strain, with slight differences,<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> as Odist appears to have mixed ideas from the Essene community with Christianity.<ref name=":12"/> Others, such as James White, have argued that the book is influenced by Gnosticism.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

SoteriologyEdit

File:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg
The Odes of Solomon have early trinitarian theology.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":0" /><ref name=":5">Template:Cite book</ref>

It has been argued by some that the Odes support the doctrine of predestination; for example, they state, "And before they had existed, I recognized them; and imprinted a seal on their faces." Others, however, do not agree with the conclusion that the book may be interpreted as teaching any kind of unconditional election, arguing that the writer had in mind, not unconditional election, but election based on foreknowledge.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref name=":12"/><ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref name=":6">Template:Cite book</ref>

According to the American New Testament scholar Thomas R. Schreiner, the soteriology of the Odes is highly grace oriented being underlined by a doctrine of election and he argued the writer saw salvation as a work of God which is not accomplished by human merit. Thomas R. Schreiner and Brian J. Arnold argued that the book supports a form of imputed righteousness.<ref name=":6" /><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

EschatologyEdit

The book makes mention of the Antichrist figuratively, using the word "dragon" for the Antichrist.<ref name=":5" /><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

The Odes perhaps references the general resurrection.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

ChristologyEdit

Some have argued that the book has docetic leanings, however it also appears to suggest that the birth of Jesus, though miraculous, was still a human birth, which would contradict docetism. It is also plausible that Ignatius of Antioch who opposed docetism (or vice versa) referenced the Odes of Solomon in his writings. Odes 8:5-6 have also been argued to refer to the resurrection of Christ.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Moreover, the strong ties of the Odes to the Johannine works suggests against docetism.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

The Odes of Solomon mention Christ as the Logos and that he is pre-existent.<ref name="Bernard">Template:Cite book</ref> The Odes contain many common Christian teachings, such as the Messiah is the Son of God and the atonement of Jesus.<ref name="Bernard" /> The Odist calls Jesus both the son of Man and Son of God.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

The Odes possibly contain the earliest non-biblical attestation of the virgin birth, depending on the date of writing.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

The book mentions the mother of the Messiah, he alludes to his death by crucifixion and his descent into Hades.<ref name=":0" />

TrinityEdit

The book mentions the "Father, Son and the Holy Spirit"<ref name=":0" /> and seem to have trinitarian theology without any indications of subordinationism unlike later Tertullian and Origen would have.<ref name=":4">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

BaptismEdit

The book also apparently makes allusions to baptism but not to the Eucharist.<ref name=":0" /> Possible baptismal themes include renewal (Ode 36:5), new creation (Ode 15:8, 21:3), the sealing of the Holy Spirit (Ode 4:7), entry into paradise (Ode 11:16), the Trinitarian formula (Ode 23:22), and circumcision (Ode 11). The presence of these themes has led some scholars to argue that the Odes are a collection of baptismal hymns.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> The writer seems to have been influenced by Jewish apocalyptic thought and mysticism.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref name=":12"/>

OtherEdit

The Odist perhaps has an understanding of "priesthood of all believers", seeing himself as an individual priest offering spiritual sacrifices.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> And the book contains an explicit affirmation of the immortality of the soul.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

The Odes says that Mary had no pain during childbirth and the midwife was absent, which suggests the doctrine of virginitas in partu meaning that Mary was still a virgin after childbirth. The statement could also be an allusion to the Exodus story, where Jewish women had very quick childbirth, which is why the Egyptian midwives could not come fast enough.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

Relation to the Psalms of SolomonEdit

{{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B= {{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B= Template:Ambox }} }} Technically the Odes are anonymous, but in many ancient manuscripts, the Odes of Solomon are found together with the similar Psalms of Solomon, and Odes began to be ascribed to the same author.

Relation to Catholic and canonical textsEdit

There are parallels in both style, and theology, between Odes and the writing of Ignatius of Antioch, as well as with the canonical Gospel of John. For example, both Odes and John use the concept of Jesus as Logos, and write in gentle metaphors. Harris lists the following similarities in theme between the Odes and the Johannine literature:

  • Christ is the Word
  • Christ existed before the foundation of the world (Odes 31, 33)
  • Christ bestows living water abundantly
  • Christ is the door to everything
  • Christ stands to His people in the relation of Lover to Beloved
  • Believers love the Lord because He first loved them (Ode 3.3)
  • Believers' love to the Christ makes them His friends (Ode 8)<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

It has been suggested that Ode 22.12 ("the foundation of everything is Your [God's] rock. And upon it You have built Your kingdom, and it became the dwelling-place of the holy ones."<ref name=charlesworth-translation>Template:Cite book</ref>) may be an earlier version of the saying in Matthew 16.18<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Relation to GnosticismEdit

SomeTemplate:Who 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. {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} Template:Transliteration; Gk. γνωσις gnōsis), the slight suggestion that the Saviour needed saving in Ode 8:21c ({{#invoke:Lang|lang}} Template:Transliteration — "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.Template:Citation needed

Scholars such as H. Chadwick, Emerton, and Charlesworth are fully convinced that the text has nothing to do with Gnosticism.<ref name=":2"/>

Parallels with MandaeismEdit

Eric Segelberg (1958) notes similarities the Odes of Solomon share various similarities with the Mandaean Qolasta prayers, including baptism in water, signation, drinking of water, investiture, coronation, and ritual meals.<ref name="Segelberg">Template:Cite book</ref>Template:Rp

Modern influenceEdit

The Odes of Solomon have inspired modern musicians and their projects. In 2010, composer John Schreiner released a two-disc album called The Odes Project, which is an adaptation of the Odes of Solomon into modern music.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }} cf. Template:Usurped</ref> The album Odes by Arthur Hatton, creator of LDS music website Linescratchers, was inspired by the Odes of Solomon and incorporated lines from the poems into its lyrics.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

See alsoEdit

ReferencesEdit

Template:Reflist

Primary published sourcesEdit

  • Bernard, JH (1912). "The Odes of Solomon" in Texts and Studies VIII.
  • Charlesworth, James H (1977). The Odes of Solomon. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press. Template:ISBN.
  • Franzmann, M (1991). The Odes of Solomon: Analysis of the Poetical Structure and Form. Göttingen.
  • Harris, JR and A Mingana (1916, 1920). The Odes and Psalms of Solomon in 2 vols. Manchester.
  • Vleugels, Gie. The Odes of Solomon: Syriac Text and English Translation with Text Critical and Explanatory Notes. MŌRĀN ETH’Ō 41. Kottayam: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 2016.

Secondary published sourcesEdit

  • Chadwick, H (1970). "Some reflections on the character and theology of the Odes of Solomon" in Kyriakon: Festschrift für J Quasten vol. 1, ed. P Granfield and JA Jungmann.
  • Drijvers, Han Jan Willem (1984). East of Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum Reprints. Template:ISBN.
  • Pierce, Mark (1984). "Themes in the Odes of Solomon and other early Christian writings and their baptismal character" in Ephemerides Liturgicae XCVIII".
  • Vleugels, Gie (2011). "The Destruction of the Second Temple in the Odes of Solomon", in: Das heilige Herz der Tora Festschrift für Hendrik Koorevaar, ed. Siegbert Riecker and Julius Steinberg, Aachen: Shaker Verlag. Template:ISBN, 303-310

External linksEdit

Template:Sister project

Template:Solomon Template:Authority control

Retrieved from "https://zalansite.site/mediawiki/index.php?title=Odes_of_Solomon&oldid=714660"