Talk:Odes of Solomon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the Oriental Orthodox Church on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
	This article may need an appropriate infobox template.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

• 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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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