Talk:Odes of Solomon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Oriental Orthodoxy

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on the Oriental Orthodox Church on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Oriental OrthodoxyWikipedia:WikiProject Oriental OrthodoxyTemplate:WikiProject Oriental OrthodoxyOriental Orthodoxy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Orthodox?

Please provide a cite that this entire collection is accepted as canonical by the Orthodox. To my knowledge it is not, with the exception of the Prayer of Manasseh, even if it is included in some mss of the LXX. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Eastern~~ Oriental Orthodox, as in the Ethiopians. Clinkophonist 21:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

disputed

I believe this article is confusing at times Odes of Solomon with the Book of Odes (Bible). I myself do not exactly know the difference between the two. But one seems to be a book included in the LXX that contains ~14 famous biblical hymns, and the other is a 2nd century CE book of about 42 odes. I hope someone can clear this up.--Andrew c 00:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my understanding. I know no source that considered "Odes of Solomon" canonincal or that it is in any manuscripts of the LXX. If no evidence is brought fourth I propose we delete sections about it being deuterocanon. Yahnatan 17:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material boldly connecting the Odes of Solomon with LXX has been added recently by User:Clinkophonist, who may have other texts with "Solomon" in the title in mind.... --Wetman 06:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be removing the references to the Septuagint unless someone can find evidence that the Odes of Solomon were in there. I have looked for such evidence and have found none. Yahnatan 15:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC

I do not understand why this article is linked to King Solomon of the OT. The odes are by a different Solomon. The link to King Solomon should not be there. KB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.113.215 (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Odes and the Pistis Sophia

No, the Odes are not canonical although they were about during the early phases of Christianity. Interestingly, I recently discovered that the Odes are probably Gnostic. If you read the longest extant Gnostic Gospel, the Pistis Sophia, there are whole sections in which Christ and the Disciples discuss interpretations of some of the Odes which are quoted in full. This makes sense of some of the Odes' terminology - much use of the word Knowledge (Gnosis) and Light as well as a very personal vision and non-hierarchial vision of Man's relationship with God ("The Lord is on my head like a Crown" etc) - and images quoted in the article such as God's breasts and the Holy Ghost being female (the Gnostics, like the Kaballists, were unafraid of the idea of a Feminine Aspect to the Divine). I find this connection fascinating. The Odes are exquisitely beautiful and focus mainly on God as a personal one of Love, Mercy and Light, very far from the Wrathful God of established Christianity. It makes you wonder how we in the West might express our spirituality if this strand of understanding hadn't been stamoed out by the Established Church. As a mass movement it died with the Cathars and had to go underground. But how would we be if we had had access to another vision of the Divinity which wasn't based on sin, redemption and the innately fallen and corrupt nature of man and instead focussed on a direct and beautiful relationship with God? ThePeg 10:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This "strand of understanding" was "stamped out" because it did not reflect the historical reality. Christianity is deeply reliant on the actual historicity of the life of Christ. Mystical accretions are not regarded as useful. Nor is there anything in mainstream Christianity standing in the way of a personal relationship with God; quite the opposite. Where ever did you get the idea that this was the case?

Nor is the idea of the female in the Divine foreign to mainstream Christianity. In languages where the word for "spirit" took the feminine gender, it was not uncommon for the Holy Spirit to be discussed as feminine. This was particularly the case in the Syriac churches. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the Odes are Gnostic. They are a little odd to the ears of modern Christians, but that doesn't make them Gnostic. They use the word 'knowledge' a lot, but that doesn't make them Gnostic. Somethimes I think Gnostic is an overemployed label for anything wacky in early Christianity. If the Odes were Gnostic, one would expect a good dose of dualism and abhorence of the created order. However, the Odes warmly embrace the physical world where the Lord is clearly in control. The body of academic opinion is coming to see the Odes as second-century Christian hymns. I, with many others, would place them in the latter half of that century, and consider their Sitz im Leben to be Christian initiation: baptism. Yes, the Odes are found in the Pistis Sophia, but so is a lot of other stuff, and the Odes are also found in contexts that do not appear Gnostic (most clearly in Lactantius). — Gareth Hughes 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are either; we kind of got off the subject. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, first off: I plan on editing the actual Article to provide a source for the statement that "some scholars see the Ode's gnosticism as overblown" (which is currently unattributed). I've never done any editing whatsoever on wikipedia before, though, so as I write this (not having changed anything in the Article yet) I am in the process of learning about/reviewing standard Wikipedia editing practices, and I plan on making the actual changes in the near future. (I know the last comment on here was like seven years ago, and the Article itself hasn't been edited in over a year, but perhaps someone will be notified by wikipedia automatically by this posting (??) and really become aware of this message.

Anyway. The source I'm citing is the 2nd Edition of Edwin Yamauchi's "Pre-Christian Gnosticism": book, specifically p.213: "D. E. Aune believes that the Odes should be considered neither 'Gnostic' nor 'non-Gnostic'184"...[snip]..."According to Charlesworth the Odes are not Gnostic but the earliest Christian hymnbook. He and R. A. Culpepper have carefully noted its numerous parallels with the Gospel of ]ohn.lS5 Drijvers also agrees that the Odes are not Gnostic but are 'orthodox'.ls6"

Obviously that section of text supports several assertions in the article that are currently tagged as needing a source (such as that "some scholars see the Ode's as orthodox, not gnostic; and that some of the Odist's questionable language is similar to that appearing the in Gospel of John. If anyone actually sees this and can suggest the best way to go about putting this edit in place, please make yourself heard! As it stands right now I'll study up some more on wiki's conventions/standards and attempt to add my source into the main article soon. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.209.8 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Odes of Solomon. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://theodesproject.net/about/odes-project-vision/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelism

The comment that the Odes are "surprisingly" evangelical are not accurate. The footnote lists Odes 6 and 10.3 to support this statement. It is a stretch to say Ode 6 has anything to do with telling others about the gospel as much as how the gospel affects individuals internally. Ode 10 is written from the perspective of Jesus talking about “God His Father.” It is Jesus who says “to convert the lives of those who desire to come to Him and to lead those who are captive into freedom,” it is not an individual disciple of Christ. It is Jesus after all according to scripture, who came to set the captives free. Despite what many call the "Great Commission," besides the original apostles who received the commission, history records a lack of emphasis on evangelism in the early Church. In keeping with that period of time, the Odes also do not appear to be evangelical in nature. Read them carefully for yourself and see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huladawg (talk • contribs) 19:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]