gnosis92

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/odes.html
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp04.htm

I agree with Doherty that some parts of it is quite beautiful, and I find Doherty's interpretation in Jesus puzzle to be quite good. Worthy of cliff notes Though my English lit teacher might disagree and put Shakespeare above Odes of Solomon in terms of literary beauty

Where I disagree are twofold

1- While it appears in James Chatherworth's translation the name Jesus does not appear, in that translation, Holy Spirit, Father, Lord, Son, Virgin, Messiah, etc are used. Unless there is another group of Judaism that uses these terms, together, it seems to me to be Christian. I am open to being wrong - if the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes did use these terms for deity than I am wrong. (I am well aware that the latter groups spoke of a Messiah, and Lord, El Shaddai, but did they also include the other terms together)?

2- I don't see why these odes, if they are indeed Christian, need to reference specific facts on Jesus life, or how they support the mythicist case. I understand that Doherty thinks that if there were a historical Jesus, that the author should have peppered his/her odes with Gospel details, the absence of which is allegedly to support the mythicist case. But of course if it did have plenty of Gospel details, mythicists would dismiss it as a later work, as with the Gospel of Thomas, for example.

additionally, Many Christian hymns like Silent Night and Amazing Grace were written by historicists who knew Gospel details, but did not include them in their hymns. As a result I doubt we can draw any conclusions about what the author(s) did, or did not, know of Gospel historical Jesus. We do not know when they were written and for which audience and purpose. The Odes of Solomon as it stands does not help the mythicist case.

Malachi151

Yes, but things in the Odes of Solomon contradict various Christian concepts, so that is something else altogether.

gnosis92

Which ones do you have in mind so I can consider? holy spirit sprouting breasts and milk?

I'd like to point out that the Gospel of Judas has plenty of "historical" detail that contradicts various Christian concepts, like Judas being a badguy.

Even if they do contradict, how does this help the mythicist case?

Chris Weimer

Er, Silent Night mentions the virgin birth...

Malachi151

Well, my commentary on the Odes is that I think that Ode 39 appears to be based on Isaiah 43:5-6, and not on the Gospels at all.

The direction of evolution, if anything appears to be from Isaiah 43 to Ode 39 to the Gospel accounts.

Now, they may both simply be based separately off Isaiah 43, but Ode 39 sure doesn't appear to come from the Gospel accounts.

If the Gospel account were known by the writer of Ode 39, which traditional scholars assume, then why does Ode 39 look more closely like Isaiah 43?

gnosis92

Doherty makes his mythicist case by pointing out that there are many Gospel details that are silent in the Pauline corpus. Ditto for Odes of Solomon. Of course, if Odes did have Gospel details, it woudl be dated late second century "gnostic" work. But the fact it does not, does not mean anything, even if it is Christian.

Even if Silent Night means virgin birth, where's the slaughter of the children, the trip to Egypt, the 3 wise men, the gift of frankensene and myrth, John the Baptist jumping out of Elizabeth's womb, etc. i hope you get the idea.


Silent night Holy night
All is calm all is bright
'Round yon virgin Mother and Child
Holy infant so tender and mild
Sleep in heavenly peace
Sleep in heavenly peace

Silent night, holy night,
Shepherds quake at the sight.
Glories stream from heaven afar,
Heav'nly hosts sing Alleluia;
Christ the Savior is born;
Christ the Savior is born.

Silent night, holy night,
Son of God, love's pure light.
Radiant beams from Thy holy face,
With the dawn of redeeming grace,
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth;
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth.

mountainman

WIKI: As for date, the slight majority of scholarship
places the Odes in the second century
(with later in the century slightly favoured),
but a date in the first (Charlesworth) and
the third centuries (Drijvers) is still argued.

spamandham

I don't see why they couldn't be Jewish. The books of Enoch were Jewish scriptures. If you combine that with Isaiah, I think you have all these. I agree though, that this adds little to the mythicist case. Admittedly, I only scanned the Odes rather than really studying them.

gnosis92

Sure, if you combine the entire Old Testament you see Jesus fulfilled over 300 messianic prophesies. The Odes have all references contained in a single work.

I admit I have not read Enoch, however, do any group of Jews ever believed God has a "Son" since it contradicts the Torah "I am thy Lord, there is no other, to another I shall not share my glory?"

gnosis92

there hasn'b been any rebuttals to my claim that Odes adds little to the mythicist case. Doherty? I've not read ascension of isiah seems really boring so i won't comment on that.