Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ode of Solomon 14

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    Someone brought up the Odes of Solomon on b-greek and it appears that in Ode 14:1-3 one can read: DOXA EN UYISTOIS QEW KAI EPI GHS EIRHNH EN ANQRWPOIS EUDOKIA
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 17, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Someone brought up the Odes of Solomon on b-greek and it appears that in
      Ode 14:1-3 one can read:
      DOXA EN UYISTOIS QEW
      KAI EPI GHS EIRHNH
      EN ANQRWPOIS EUDOKIA

      which is the Byzantine text of Lk 2:14.
      I know almost nothing about the Odes. A quick Google scan shows that the
      date of composition is much debated, even if the Odes are of Christian
      origin seems to be in question.
      That Ode 14 is Christian is clear, because in 14:14 it is referred to
      "Jesus Christ".
      Is there an accepted date and textual history for these Odes today?
      Authoritative literature?

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------------------------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
    • Tommy Wasserman
      Dear Wieland, to my knowledge there is only one Ode preserved in Greek, i.e. the 11th Ode (a comparably early witness, c. 300), so your reference is erraneous.
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 18, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Wieland,

        to my knowledge there is only one Ode preserved in Greek, i.e. the 11th
        Ode (a comparably early witness, c. 300), so your reference is
        erraneous. There is no references of the kind you mention. In the Odes
        Messiah is mentioned but not "Jesus Christ", yet most think the Odes
        are of Jewish-Christian origin). I think the editor of the 11th Ode, M.
        Testuz suggested that the Odes were originally written in Greek, but
        the majority today think they were written in Syriac. Earlier scholars
        suggested that they were Gnostic, but today again I think that there is
        a consensus that they cannot be labeled as Gnostic, even if they may
        show some such influence. In this regard, there are many similarities
        and parallels to the Fourth Gospel, which may suggest a common
        environment. Check the writings of Charlesworth and Lattke for more
        information. The text is available in Charlesworth's edition of
        Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and Ode 14 does not at all read the way
        you cite.

        With regards

        Tommy Wasserman
        Sweden




        2004-11-18 kl. 08.23 skrev Wieland Willker:

        >
        > Someone brought up the Odes of Solomon on b-greek and it appears that
        > in
        > Ode 14:1-3 one can read:
        > DOXA EN UYISTOIS QEW
        > KAI EPI GHS EIRHNH
        > EN ANQRWPOIS EUDOKIA
        >
        > which is the Byzantine text of Lk 2:14.
        > I know almost nothing about the Odes. A quick Google scan shows that
        > the
        > date of composition is much debated, even if the Odes are of Christian
        > origin seems to be in question.
        > That Ode 14 is Christian is clear, because in 14:14 it is referred to
        > "Jesus Christ".
        > Is there an accepted date and textual history for these Odes today?
        > Authoritative literature?
        >
        > Best wishes
        >     Wieland
        >        <><
        > ------------------------------------------------
        > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        > mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
        > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        > Textcritical commentary:
        > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        >
        > ADVERTISEMENT
        > <111704_1104_f_300250a.gif>
        > <l.gif>
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > • To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/
        >  
        > • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >  
        > • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > Service.
        >
        >
      • Wieland Willker
        Oh, I see now that I ve mixed this up with the LXX Odes! I was talking about the LXX Ode 14, following the Psalms. Now this is something I know even less about
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 18, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Oh, I see now that I've mixed this up with the LXX Odes! I was talking
          about the LXX Ode 14, following the Psalms. Now this is something I know
          even less about than the Odes of Solomon! Very embarrassing. :-(
          Let me change my question accordingly:
          What is the accepted date and textual history for the LXX Ode 14?
          Authoritative literature?

          Best wishes
          Wieland
          <><
          ------------------------------------------------
          Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
          http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          Textcritical commentary:
          http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
        • D Jongkind
          Hi, Fraenkel lists in the new Verzeichnis only 7 manuscripts that could possibly contain Ode 14 (I included all the MSS listed as fragments and luecken ). 2
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 18, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi,

            Fraenkel lists in the new Verzeichnis only 7 manuscripts that could
            possibly contain Ode 14 (I included all the MSS listed as fragments and
            'luecken').
            2 from V c.
            2 from VI
            1 from VII
            1 from VIII
            1 from X/XI

            In total there are about 32 MSS with only the Odes (most only a tiny
            fragment!), and 12 MSS with Psalms and the Odes. Hengel (The Septuagint,
            59) cites Rahlfs 'But brom the fifth century onward, all Greek MSS have
            it [viz. the Odes]' which seems something of an overstatement.

            I think it will be tricky to construct much of a textual history for
            your 14th ode, unless you are helped by the Apostolic Constitutions.

            The late date of the Greek collection is shown by the absence of a
            collection of Odes in Latin biblical mnauscripts (as far as I can see).
            I am not aware of other language traditions. I guess the odes must have
            figured somehow (perhaps not as a collection) in Latin liturgical MSS as
            they are quite commonly used in the West.

            Regards,
            Dirk


            Wieland Willker wrote:

            >
            > Oh, I see now that I've mixed this up with the LXX Odes! I was talking
            > about the LXX Ode 14, following the Psalms. Now this is something I know
            > even less about than the Odes of Solomon! Very embarrassing. :-(
            > Let me change my question accordingly:
            > What is the accepted date and textual history for the LXX Ode 14?
            > Authoritative literature?
            >
            > Best wishes
            > Wieland
          • sarban
            ... From: Wieland Willker To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:20 AM Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Ode of Solomon 14 Oh,
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 18, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:20 AM
              Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Ode of Solomon 14


              Oh, I see now that I've mixed this up with the LXX Odes! I was talking
              about the LXX Ode 14, following the Psalms. Now this is something I know
              even less about than the Odes of Solomon! Very embarrassing. :-(
              Let me change my question accordingly:
              What is the accepted date and textual history for the LXX Ode 14?
              Authoritative literature?

              Best wishes
                  Wieland
                     <><
              ------------------------------------------------
              Since Ode 9 is based on Luke 1:46-55 and 68-79
              and  Ode 13 is based on Luke 2:29-32
              the collection of 14 Odes can be securely
              regarded as post-Christian    
               
              (Odes 1 to 7 are based on the canonical OT
              Ode 8 is the deuterocanonical 'Song of the three
              holy children' from Greek-Daniel
              Ode 10 and 11 are based on the canonical OT
              Ode 12 is the deuterocanonical Prayer of
              Manasses'
              As well as Luke 2:14 Ode 14 draws on the Psalms.)
               
              Ode 14 is known as the Great or Greater Doxology and has an
              important role in Eastern Orthodox worship.
               
              In its present form it may be rather late (say 500 CE) but it is based
              upon a much earlier prayer which goes back certainly to the 4th
              century and probably to the 3rd or earlier.
               
              The earliest known form is that in the Apostolic Constitutions book 7
              which is late 4th century and has the Byzantine/Majority reading for
              Luke 2:14
               
              Andrew Criddle
            • Wieland Willker
              Is it correct to say that the Odes have been added to the LXX Psalms in the 5th CE? And the earliest form of Ode 14 is that in the Apostolic Constitutions (4th
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 19, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Is it correct to say that the Odes have been added to the LXX Psalms in
                the 5th CE?
                And the earliest form of Ode 14 is that in the Apostolic Constitutions
                (4th CE)?

                Best wishes
                Wieland
                <><
                ------------------------------------------------
                Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                Textcritical commentary:
                http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
              • sarban
                ... From: Wieland Willker To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Cc: albert.pietersma@sympatico.ca Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 2:30 PM Subject:
                Message 7 of 8 , Nov 19, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 2:30 PM
                  Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Ode of Solomon 14


                  Is it correct to say that the Odes have been added to the LXX Psalms in
                  the 5th CE?
                  And the earliest form of Ode 14 is that in the Apostolic Constitutions
                  (4th CE)?

                  IIUC there is a reference to the Ode in
                  Pseudo-Athanasius 'De Virginitate' with the
                  Byzantine form of Luke 1:14.
                   
                  The date of this Pseudo-Athanasian work is obscure but MAY be
                  earlier than the Apostolic Constitutions.
                   
                  Andrew Criddle
                • sarban
                  ... From: sarban To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Ode of Solomon 14 IIUC there
                  Message 8 of 8 , Nov 19, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: sarban
                    Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 4:04 PM
                    Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Ode of Solomon 14

                    IIUC there is a reference to the Ode in Pseudo-Athanasius 'De Virginitate' with the Byzantine form of Luke 1:14.
                     
                    sorry that should obviously be Luke 2:14
                     
                    Andrew Criddle
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.