Last updated 2nd August 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. As we resolve the issues resulting from this, we are also experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
41 verse texts are extant of the original 42 poems (also described as hymns, psalms or songs) which comprise the so-called Odes of Solomon—a corpus not to be confused with the 18 so-called Psalms of Solomon. As can be seen from the Appendix, the history of the discovery and publication of these poems began with C.G. Woide at the end of the eighteenth century.1 Up to that time the only evidence for the Odes of Solomon was twofold. On the one hand, there was an enigmatic Latin quotation of three lines (i.e. 19:6-7a) in the Divinae Institutiones of Lactantius (c.240-c.320). On the other hand, the mere title 
was listed together with the better known 
in the so-called 
of Ps.-Athanasios and the 
ascribed to Nikephoros Patriarch of Konstantinopolis (c.750-828). In these two canon-lists Psalms and Odes appear in this order among the Old Testament's ‘antilegomena’ which is a category between ‘canonical’ and ‘apocryphal’.
1 Appendix ad editionem Novi Testamenti Graeci e codice Ms. Alexandrino a Carolo Godofredo Woide descripti, in qua continentur fragmenta Novi Testamenti juxta interpretationem dialecti superioris Aegypti quae Thebaidica vel Sahidica appellatur, e codicibus Oxoniensibus maxima ex parte desumpta, cum dissertatione de versione bibliorum Aegyptiaca. Quibus subjicitur codicis Vaticani collatio (Oxford 1799)Google Scholar.
2 Odae Gnosticae Salomoni tributae, Thebaice et Latine, praefatione et adnotationibus philologicis illustratae (Copenhagen 1812)Google Scholar.
3 Pistis Sophia. Opus gnosticum Valentino adiudicatum e codice manuscripto coptico Londinensi descriptum (Berlin 1851, 1853)Google Scholar.
4 Über das gnostische Buch Pistis Sophia (Texte und Untersuchungen, 7.2; Leipzig 1891)Google Scholar.
5 
Psalms of the Pharisees, commonly called the Psalms of Solomon. The text newly revised from all the MSS. Edited, with introduction, English translation, notes, appendix, and indices (Cambridge 1891)Google Scholar.
6 Pistis Sophia. Neu herausgegeben mit Einleitung nebst griechischem und koptischem Wort- und Namensregister (Coptica, 2; Copenhagen 1925)Google Scholar.
7 The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, now first published from the Syriac version (Cambridge 1909)Google Scholar.
8 The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, published from the Syriac version. 2nd ed., revised and enlarged, with a facsimile (Cambridge 1911)Google Scholar.
9 ‘A new MS of the Odes of Solomon’, JTS 13 (1912) 372–385Google Scholar.
10 The Odes and Psalms of Solomon. Re-edited for the Governors of the John Rylands Library. 1: The Text with Facsimile Reproductions. 2: The Translation with Introduction and Notes (Manchester 1916, 1920)Google Scholar.
11 Cf. Boccaccini, G., Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought, 300 B.C.E. to 200 CE. (Minneapolis 1991)Google Scholar.
12 Testuz, M., Papyrus Bodmer X-XII (Cologny-Genève 1959)Google Scholar.
13 Charlesworth, J.H., The Odes of Solomon. Edited with translations and notes (Oxford 1973)Google Scholar; cf. 2nd ed., almost identical with 1st ed. (Scholars Press 1977); Lattke, M., Die Oden Salemos in ihrer Bedeutung für Neues Testament und Gnosis. 1: Ausführliche Handschriftenbeschreibung. Edition mit deutscher Parallelübersetzung. Hermen-eutischer Anhang zur gnostischen Interpretation der Oden Salomes in der Pistis Sophia. 1a: Der syrische Text der Edition in Estrangela. Faksimile des griechischen Papyrus Bodmer Xl. 2: Vollständige Wortkonkordanz zur handschriftlichen, griechischen, koptischen, lateinischen und syrischen Überlieferung der Oden Solomos. Mit einem Faksimile des Kodex N. 3: Forschungsgeschichtliche Bibliographie 1799-1984 mit kritischen Anmerkungen. Mit einem Beitrag von Majella Franzmann: A Study of the Odes of Solomon with Reference to the French Scholarship 1909-1980 (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 25.1–3Google Scholar; Freiburg, Schweiz and Göttingen 1979 [1-2], 1980 [1a], 1986 [3]); Franzmann, M., The Odes of Solomon: An Analysis of the Poetical Structure and Form (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, 20Google Scholar; Freiburg, Schweiz and Göttingen 1991).
14 ‘Wie alt ist die Allegorie, daß Christus (Messias) der wahre Salomon sei?’, ZNW 82 (1991) 279Google Scholar.
15 ‘Christus als »wahrer Salomo« in der frühen Kirche’, ZNW 84 (1993) 111–34Google Scholar.
16 Cf. some of my previous papers, e.g., “The Apocryphal Odes of Solomon and New Testament Writings’, ZNW 73 (1982) 294–301Google Scholar; ‘Zur Bildersprache der Oden Salomes’, Symbolen 6 (1982) 95–110Google Scholar.
17 Schmidt, C. and MacDermot, V., The Books of Jeu and the Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex (Nag Hammadi Studies, 13; Leiden 1978) 226.18–227.18Google Scholar.
18 Kytzler, B., M. Minucius Felix, Octavius (München 1965) 166–169Google Scholar.
19 Goodspeed, E., Die ältesten Apologeten. Texte mit kurzen Einleitungen (Göttingen 1914; repr. 1984) 66Google Scholar. On the symbol of outstretched hands cf. also Dialogue with Trypho 40.3, 91.1-3, especially 91.3 
Goodspeed, 137, 205. Moses’ hands are seen as a symbol of victory.
20 Cf. Franzmann (above n. 13) 204.
21 Cf. Franzmann (above n. 13) 282.
22 Conybeare, F.C., “The Odes of Solomon Montanist’, ZNW 12 (1911) 70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fries, S.A., ‘Die Oden Solomos. Montanistische Lieder aus dem 2. Jahrhundert’, ZNW 12 (1911) 108–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 ‘Montanismus’, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart 4 (1960) 1117–18Google Scholar.
24 Cf. Bonwetsch, N., Texte zur Geschichte des Montanismus (Heine Texte, 129; Bonn 1914) 17.8–12Google Scholar; Hilgenfeld, A., Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums urkundlich dargestellt (Leipzig 1884; repr. Darmstadt 1966) 591 nr. 2Google Scholar.
25 A. Hilgenfeld (see previous note) 592.
26 Cf. 2nd ed. of Franz Diekamp's Doctrina, with corrections and additions of Phan-ourgakis, B., ed. by Chrysos, E. (Münster 1981) 306Google Scholar.
27 Cf. Lattke, M., ‘Die Messias-Stellen der Oden Solomos’, in Breytenbach, C. and Paulsen, H. (eds), Anfänge der Christologie (Göttingen 1991) 429–45, esp. 442-5Google Scholar.
28 For the Greek text in full 
cf. Quispel, G., Ptolémée, Lettre à Flora. Analyse, texte critique, traduction, commentaire et index grec, 2nd ed. (Sources chrétiennes, série annexe de textes non chrétiens, 24 bis; Paris 1966) 72Google Scholar and Völker, W., Quellen zur Geschichte der christlichen Gnosis (Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften, NF 5; Tübingen 1932) 93Google Scholar. Cf. German translation of Leisegang, H., Die Gnosis> (Kröners Taschenausgabe, 32; Leipzig 1924 = 5th ed., Stuttgart 1985) 308Google Scholar: ‘wenn du wie ein schönes und gutes Stück Land, das keimkräftige Samen erhalten hat, die durch sie erzeugte Frucht ans Licht gebracht hast’.
29 Fragment 20; cf. Brooke, A.E., The Fragments of Heracleon. Newly Edited from the MSS. with an Introduction and Notes (Texts and Studies, 1.4; Cambridge 1891; repr. Nendeln/Liechtenstein 1967) 77.16–17Google Scholar.
30 Cf. Brox, N., Irenaus von Lyon, Epideixis, Adversus haereses—Darlegung der apostolischen Verkündigung, Gegen die Häresien I (Fontes Christiani, 8/1; Freiburg 1993)244–245Google Scholar.
31 Cf. also Corpus Hermeticum 13.8Google Scholar according to Bauer, W., ‘Die Oden Salomos’, in Hennecke, E. and Schneemelcher, W. (eds), Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, Bd. II: Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes (Tübingen, 3rd ed. 1964) 576–625Google Scholar: ‘Es kam zu uns die Erkenntnis 
Gottes; durch ihr Kommen wurde die Unkenntnis 
vertrieben’ (586).
32 In the context of this paper it is not important whether Valentinos himself was a Gnostic or not. This question is discussed in a very thorough monograph by Markschies, C., Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 65; Tübingen 1992)Google Scholar. As far as I can see, Markschies does not mention the Odes of Solomon in his interpretation of Fragment 6 (186-204).
33 Cf. translation and structural analysis of this Ode, the first one preserved in Syriac, by Franzmann, 18-23, esp. 19. As far as the English translation is concerned I have made a few changes.
34 Support for this step of dating is perhaps given by Tatian's Diatessaron if the variant reading of Matthew 16:18, ‘bars 
of Sheol’, is dependent on Ode 17:9Google Scholar; cf. Brock, S., ‘Some Aspects of Greek Words in Syriac’, in Dietrich, A. (ed.), Synkretismus im syrisch-persischen Kulturgebiet (Göttingen 1975) 80–108, esp. 95-8Google Scholar; cf. also my discussion of 
and other Greek words in the Odes, ‘Die griechischen Wörter im syrischen Text der Oden Salomes’, in the forthcoming Brock, SebastianFestschrift (Oxford 1994)Google Scholar.
35 Cf. text and translation of Sagnard, F., Clément d'Alexandrie, Extraits de Théodote. Texte grec, introduction, traduction et notes (Sources chrétiennes, série annexe de textes non chrétiens, 23; Paris 1948; corr. repr. 1970) 170–171Google Scholar: 
‘Sur Adam, par-dessus les trois éléments immatériels, l'homme «terrestre» 
en a revêtu un quatrième: «les tuniques de peaux»‘; cf. Iren, . Haer. 1.5.5Google Scholar.
36 Cf. Wengst, K., Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet (Schriften des Urchristentums, 2; Darmstadt 1984) 203–80, esp. 214 and 227Google Scholar.
37 Franzmann, 275; cf. 
in 2 Clem. 19.1, and already 1 Esra 
[= 3 Ezra 
] 4:40, 
—benedictus Deus veritatis.
38 Hermann Jordan in his Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur (Leipzig 1911) suggested already the time around 125 as date of origin for these Greek products of early Christian poetry (458-9). In my commentary on the Odes I shall discuss the problem of dating on a broader basis, especially in response to Abramowski, L., ‘Sprache und Abfassungszeit der Oden Solomos’, Oriens Christianus 68 (1984) 80–90Google Scholar.
39 Cf. Lake, K., The Apostolic Fathers, 1: I Clement, II Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas (London 1912; repr. 1977) 354–357, especially 357Google Scholar.
40 Franzmann, 226-227; cf. Wengst, 148-151.
41 Bauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. revised and augmented by Gingrich, F.W. and Danker, F.W. (Chicago and London 1979) 897Google Scholar.
42 Koester, H., History and Literature of Early Christianity (Philadelphia, Berlin and New York 1982) 217Google Scholar.
43 (See previous note) 218.
