,!
::;il{::k zt (ntzs
THE AUsTRALnN Soircry pon CIaSSICAL Srunres
and printed at the Ilniversity of New Engtand publishing Unit,
^ i
I \ rmi^date
lnttichtho-n is a journal of ancienr world studies. while it will place its
main emphasis on Greece and Rome, its scope has been broadry defined so
as to embrace the Ancient Near East and the Mediterranein from the
beginnings of civilisation to the Early Middle Ages.
The journal is open to contributors from any country, and will publish
articles on topics relating to the languages, litlrature, thought, history and
archaeology of the ancient world. It will not undertake fuil-Jcaie reviewing,
but may include occasional reviews and articles reporting the progress of
scholarship in a particular field of enquiry.
EDITORS
Dr N. o'Sullivan, Department of classics and Ancient History,
University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A. 6009
Associate Professor G.R. Stanton, Department of Classics and
Ancient History, University of New England, N.S.W. 2351
EDITORI.AL COMMITTEE
Dr G.H.R. Horsley, La Trobe University
Professor E.A. Judge, Macquarie University
Ms F. Muecke, University of Sydney
Professor B.M. Rawson, Australian National University
Dr I. Worthington, University of Tasmania
NEW ZEALAND CORRESPONDENT
Dr C.T.H.R. Ehrhardt, University of Otago
The Australian society for classical studies aims at the advancement
of the
study of ancient Greece and Rome and related fields, and membership is
open to all present and past members of university staffs who are or
have
been engaged in teaching or research in the ancient languages, lite;aturs,
history, thought and archaeology of the ancient woild,-and to other
interested persons.
PRESIDENT Professor R.G. Tanner, University of Newcastle
SECRETARY Mr R.A. Pitcher, Department of classics and Ancient
History, University of New England, Armidale,
N.S.W.2351
TREASTIRER Dr A.W. James, School of Archaeology, Classics and
Ancient History, University of Sydney, N.S.W. 2006
SUBSCRIPTIONS: A. foI. membership of the-Society (including
A4tichthon): $ 25.00 (Australian); B. for intichthon: $25.00 (Australian)
for individual subscribers and $30.00 (Australian) for institutions-una
libraries' Payment should be made to the Busin"r, Munug",
iarro"iut"
Professor P.G. Toohey, Department of classics and a.n-cieni History,
University of New England, Armidale, N.S.V/. Australia 2351).
Dating the Odes of Solomon
I
41 verse texts are extant of the.original 42 poems (also described as
hymns,
psalms_or songs) which comprise the so-cailed odes of soromon-acorpus
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 pubrication
of
these poems began with c.G. woide at the end of thaeighteenth
century.r
up to that time the only evidence for the odes of soloiron *u, twofold.
on the one hand, there was an enigmatic Latin quotation of three lines (i.e.
19:6-:7a) in the Divinae Institutio,ne.s of Lactaniius (c.240-c.320).
on the
other hand, the mere title :p6ai Do)opriuros was liited together'wilh
the
better known gilpoi 2o)op6uros in the so-called ZJuogL, of pr._
Athanasios and the |rLyoperpta ascribed to Nikephoros patriarch
of
Konstantinopolis (c.750-828). In these two canon-lisis psalms and
odes
appear in this order among the old restament's 'antilegomena' which
is a
category between 'canonical' and .apocryphal,.
. Qe pseudepigraphical name o1solomon was probably the main if not
the only reason why the odes were regarded ur p-t of t'he disputed
old
Testament and neither as. 'antilegomeni' nor as iapocryphu' oi tt
Testament. If Lactantius did not take his quotation fiom abreek "-N"*
coll,ection
(in.which, by the way, the O-des were not preceded by the psalms
of
Solomonl) we have to ask whether there wis perhaps ilro, u. with
the
Psalms of solomon, an early Latin version of tni oaei of soioionr.
title'Odes of Solomon, is indeed very old. Bothlwords, ,Ode, and
'solomon', are already mentioned by Lactantius (Div. inst.' +.ti.t-z;
'epitome' 39[441.r-2) for whom they are apparently part of his
canonical
old restament. we find Isaiah 7:r4 and.ott". references in the
"unoni"al (nobiscum
context of prophetical proof for the advent of Emmanuer
ieus)
or the Son-of Man (filius hominis). The quotario n of ode r9:6--7ais
intro-
duced by the following words: soromon in ode undeuicesima
ita driit. /nna
the heading of ode 1l in the Greek papyrus Bodmer XI, the
ota"ri-*uru-
script and testimony, is Q6i1 Zdopiuios.
Successive discoveries lend to our work an exciting history.
The first
and therefore quite misleading greater portion of the ddes.u*"
to light
with codex Askew (A) containin g pisiis sophia, one of tne rew orrgirur
Paper read at the International conference 'Ancient History
in a Modern university,,
Macquarieuniversity, 8-13 July 1993. special thanks to my coleague
Horsley, who transformed the oral version into a more
and friend Gree H.R.
fo#al on".'--
I
Appendix ad editionem Novi restamenti Graeci e codice Ms. Alexandrino
Godofredo woide descripti, in qua continentur
a caroro
fragmenta Nivi restamenti iuxta
interpretationem diarecti superioris Aegypti quae Tiebiidica ra
codicibus oxoniensibus maxima u
srniiiri ,iiriiirrr,
fiie irru*pto, cum dissprtation, ii ur'irirn,"
bibliorum Aegyptiaca. euibus subjicitur codicis viticani ,irttr,ii ''
<o.iiril&;.
45
46 Michael Lattke Dating the Odes of Solomon 47

(paper manuscript'
Gnostic writings to have survived. The Greek original was probably by James Rendel Harris in 1909 from Codex Harris
Syr'-9)'7 A.second edition
written in the mid-third century, whereas the Coptic Codex Askew stems John Rylands Library, Mun"t'"'t"t, Cod' (parch-
from the mid-fourth century. A first note on this Sahidic parchment codex ;;ii;.;l^i;i-g11,, uf,". r'i. sr.kitt had found Codex Nitriensis
manusc.ripts, N and
was published by woide in an appendix to his edition of the New Testa- ment, British Museum, MS. AOa. t+S:A;.e nolh Syriac
Library' Add'
menf of Codex Alexandrinus, followed by a Coptic-Latin 'editio princeps', H, and even a t ug*"n;ry'tf,iia on" (Cambridge University
eirlier evidence, the Odes and
as it were, of the five Odes of Solo'mon quoted in Pisris Sophia' By the 2012) contained, in an oJi, Oiit"."nt fiom the
prrki-iiiitr*on.rn" syriac word for the conventional titles'ode' and
way, the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus refers to the '18' non-canonical according to Codex H
,pialms of Solomon, (cf. table of contents, last item) but not to the Odes 'i;;i;l iespectively-it'on" and th9
-same' with Alphonse
of Solombn. We might add that none of the Greek manuscripts of the i>,i,=,-zimtrtd. in 1916 and 1920 Harris' togetheraccompanied by
Mi;g;; puitl.h"o *huir""*"d to be the final edition'
Psalms of Solomon contains the Odes of Solomon either.
introduction'I0
Today we are able to identify the Coptic quotations as Od.es l:^l-5, notes and a comprehensive
5:1-1la, 6:8-18, 22:1-12,25:l-12. Although there is no quotation of any
"-iti.ir"
But this was not to-L! tf," final chapter' The first Qumran
decade' the
well as the study of what
of the 18 Psalms of Solomon inPisris Sophia, we can assume with the 1950s, ievolutionised New Testament siudies as
'Early Judaism" and is now
highest probability that the collection from which the Odes are quoted was still called 'Late Judaism', then renamed
,ruriadle Judaism' rr At the end of this first Qumran decade the
co-ntained both Ps-alms and Odes of Solomon, and these in the same order
as they are mentioned in the canon-lists of Ps.-Athanasios and Nikephoros.
"uiiJ
existence of a very c.""t version of^the odes was established by the
"*iy
,iiii prinrrpt oi r"pvrii Cod*q x-Ijr2 papyrus is part.of a small
The reason for this assumption is that the text of Ode l:1-5 is erroneously Tis (i'e" Jude arld l-2
quoted as ,19th ode of solomon' but it is not identical with ode 19 of the Ato containingie*L f.o* the New Testament
Protevangelium- Jacobi
two syriac manuscripts N (codex Nitriensis) and H (codex Harris). Is it Peter: PBodm. VII-Vii = E"),
"oO"^ the apocryphal
of the early
possible to draw any ionclusion from this erroneous quotation with respect d,-B;i; , ano 3 c;;. Qnoam.XIII), the-Fassah-Homily
!), a fragmen-t-of a.Clristian hymn
io the title of the Psalms of Solomon at that time? Was the title used of Ctui"t Father Meliton linoam'
the whole collection-'Odis of Solossn'- comparable to the one title in (iBri*. xtt;, tt. Apologv gf-P{e.as (|!odm XX) and Old Testament
the Syriac version? ijruf*, ZZ:Zjql6 eBo;;.IX). This collection stems from four different
since these odes of solomon are quoted in the same way as some of scribes.Jude,3cor.andode||.arewrittenbythesamehandandareolder
the Psalms of David *e cun further assume that they had quasi-canonical '--- ifr" Jir"
authority for the author and community of Pistis Sophia. The question overy <sf Papyrus Bodmer XI, the earliest of the manuscripts
whetheia Coptic version of the Odes ever existed is partly dependent on so far found, ,"-op"nlJ'ih" d.but" on the origin (date and place) and
version been
determining the original language of the Gnostic book. iunluug" of the Odis'original velsjgn' H{.an original.Greek
ttug"r. Now, Ode 11 is 7 lines longer than the
The Dinish biihop p. Mtinter was the first scholar who analysed the 5 at a rather
"uir] Nitri-
,Odes of Solomon, ciitically.2 It was not until 1851/53 that J.H. Peter- "-p"ri"a
SVii"" ,"ttion in Codex ifuoit (i'e', verses 16c-h and 22b; Codex
the original (shorter or
publirhed the real first edition of Pistis Sophia together with a Latin U"gint unfortunately only at 17 7-b)' Was
^unn
translaion by M.G. Schwartze.3 Adolf Harnack wrote a monograph on the
"iri, A""k version-tiinslated into Coptic and Latin? Neither of the
i;;;t)
Gnostic Uoot in 1891.4 In the same year H.E. Ryle and M'J' James cop,ti.,unaLatinquotationsconcernsode.ll,Themainquestionis,wasa
an original Syriac
published the text of the pharis aic Psalms of Solomon, in a newly revised ,t o1t", Greek originuii"^t t unrtuted into Syriac? Or was
the 3rd century)
Laition based on all the triss known so far.s The best iritical edition of the version (which must then have been composed well before
into Greek and later expanded in its Greek form?
Pistis Sophia was published in 1925 by Carl Schmidt'6 -
translatei
-Another
qu"rtion ir, when was the
.Greek,-and 'coptic'-order (i.e.,
ny inis time ihe situation with regard to the Odes of Solomon had order (i'e'' O des followed
completely changed. The Syriac version had been recovered and published P s alms followld by Odi s) changed to the'Syriac'

2 Odae Gnosticae Salomoni tributae, Thebaice et Latine, praefatione et adnotationibus

7 Th" odes and psalms of solomon, now first published from
the syriac version
phitotoeicis illustratae (Copenhagen I 8 l2). (Cambridge 1909).
3 pisris iophia. Opus grotiiru^ialentino adiudicatum e codice manuscripto coptico B l;'O;;';ni pl*t*, of Solomon, published from the Syriac version. 2nd ed., revised
Londinensi descrrprnm (Berlin l85l' 1853). and enlarged, with a facsimile (Cambridge 191 l)'
a iti, das gnostiiche iuch Pistis Sophia (Texte und Untersuchungen, 7.2; Leipzig
9 ;,q,-** rrr"s o tlr" oirt of Solomon"J?s 13 (1912) 372-385'
r 0 iii-oii-"iiita*i if iriiii,n.' Re-edired for the Governors of the lohn Rvtands
l89l). with Introduction
S ieiUOt ZOAOMONTOZ. Psalms of the Pharisees, commonly called the Psalms of Library. t rne rext iiti ii"ii^it" Reproductions.2: The Translation

solomon. The text newly revised from all the MSS. Edited, with introduction, English and Notes (Manchester 19L6, l92O)'
translation, notes, appendix, and indices (Cambridge 1891)'
lt Ci.-C.-So."u""i"i,--Uiaati Judaism: lewish Thought, 300 B.C.E. to 2O0 C.E'
6 F;rr" Sopiia. Neu'ierausgeg"ben mit Einleitung nebst griechischen und koptischent (MinneaPolis 1991)'
Wort- uid Namensregister (Coptica, 2; Copenhagen 1925)'
12 i"f.i"",ir'Papyrus Bodmer X-XII (Cologny-Gendve 1959)'
 49
Dating t/te Odes of Solomon
48 Michael l,attke and' in later terms' rather
.If these poems are originally an anonymous
apocryphal product ;;?;;;hi'*t'itt' iudaism' Gnosticism and Christ-
by Psalms)? If, however, the 'syriac' order was the original one' why was "f wfry were they soon called'Odes'
iichanged, again very early, to the 'Greek' order?
ianity were still overlappiil;h;th*'
and why were they uu.iUui"d to the
poet-king Solomon as early as in the
Ai for the Syriac version we may add three more aspects b;;h;;;of ti'" t"to'I century' i'e' at a time when
(i) From coiex Harris which begins somewhere in ode 3 (ode 2 so far second half or at least 'it'i'iii'i
nodmer .Xlmust have existed? Who
is
seems'lost altogether) we are able to conclude not only that there- was
the the source-manuscript What is the place
this collection?
that there was at least one the actual author, ot grJup oi'uuit'ott' of what is
source-codex w:hich was directly copied, but also the
was used indirectly. This is explicitly stated or rhe milieu of th"ir-'origi"f e"a, mo.st importantly,
-oi" Syriu" manuscript which at26:71and a"," of m.it origln and-earliesJ distribution?
(cf. 40:3)' in 3 Kings 6' 5:12
-at28:li It seems ,oo ,r*pi" j;'il;'"f* to the statement TTapapd(is lcf'
emendations
- (ii) also at 24:4b in Codex Nitriensis was made on the
"pp."-f*"|"
if th" (cf. I Kings qsz), ,ni iih'r1oeu \a)u1tau rprcxt)tas
"o.r""tion
basis oi a textual collation, a similar conclusion could be drawn for
this
tree. N and H, together with_their respect- \ooo *;rtiattil, iai
niiiiiri
'of
airo, ievrar<toy()ta1[cf. 1005 shiriml,
branch of the Syriac manuscript thi Odes' rc6)a (i'e" lines of verse) comes
very
the number
ive source manuscripts, on the one hand belong to the same Syriac 'rersion Septuagint)'
but on the other hand contain a sufficient number of variant readings to
"irfr"rgft
t"" thousand (not 5000, as in the - ^. .
isihe allegorv that Chdst (the
"i"r"Recently I raised;;;ilig1',!:y
1

"
distinguish the manuscripts as related but distinct branches of transmission' "Ld is found in Athanasios'
(i"ii) rne rcrminus ob qur* of the odes, syriac version, not as original Messiah) is the true S-"fJ*o"i'o This allegorv ycip iortv -iln9qs
Expositio in Psalmos of the fourth century: o7'os
but as a translation from the Greek version, is probably given with an (ii'zl j7+il. If.this allegorical equation is as old
allusion to ode ll:23a in Ephrem's Madrasha de Paradiso 7.21:.'and
Eilopdv 6 etprlvacos j choice of the
as the title of the ode's soto*on the reason for the
nothing is idle there'. This Syrlac church father died in A'D' 373' be a Christological.one' that is to say they are meant to
eithe end of this brief historical survey I should mention the works ;;;;;l; could whose name (in Syriac: <),:'>l-m'sihd) appeus seYen
L" Oariot Christ all' However'
ofJamesH.Charlesworth,LattkeandFranzmannwhichnowadaysform does not occur at
times in the Odes *fr"r"t" tn" name"Jesus'
ilicscholarly basis for further studies.l3 The poetical analysis especially of to my inquiry'I5 the allegoty.can not
*y and former PhD student Majella Franzmann will be of great on-it" uuri, of R' Hanig's response
^century. Therefore this problem of ancient
be traced back to ,t"'.E"ono
u.iirtun".ifor vol. 4 of my own work, a historical-critical commentary on
"ott"ague
pt"oa"pigtuphy remains as open as many others'
the Odes.
m
tr

pseud- Ishallrestrictmyselffortherestofthisessaytotheproblemofdatingthe
As mentioned above, there is probably a connection between-the few associations
lhe Odes.eToke ouite a
of 72 UI B) and 127 Odes.Langttage and it*g"iy
Lpfg."ptti""t ,urn" of Solomon (as auihor Psalms
and with some N"* r"rtunlJnilna
"f otner early christian traditions,l6 some
Wisdom' P-salms
iiz"o eit, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, ideas of the Dead s"" 3"t"iit other Jewish writings' and s-ome Gnostic
Oies) inaboth the quasi-canonical classification of the Odes and the use of "O C.odices' to say
them consequent upon that classification. The statement of this hypo-
topi"" founO in P;srls Sophia and the. N1g H.uTT?diof Jews and early
Bible
nothing of allusions ;; ,h;T"bt"w and/or Greek
thetical connection, however, must be distinguished from the following I should stress that it is
Christians. Sp"utirg Jf uttotiutiont and allusions'
questions.
almost impossible to n'O in the Odes any
direct gygtalion of'.or un-
*titings for rnany of which the exact dating
ambiguous allusion a,
I ngys (Oxford is also verY difficult.
"*fi"t
I J.H. Charleswo rth, The Odes of Solomon. Edited with translations l1d
may have influenced the
1973); cf. 2nd ed', almost ideniical with lst ed' (Scholars Press 1977); M' Lattke' Die
of course, we are interested in texts which important for exegetical
oden salomos in ihrer Bedeutung fi)r Neues Testament und Gnosis. l: Ausfilhrliche ffi';;;;;i-is
od.es of sotomon. particularly
Hermen-
Handschriftenbeschreibung. Ediibn mit deutscher Paralleliibersetzung. we are looking for words' phrases
in der Pistis sophia. purposes. At the same time, however'
eutischer Anhang zur gnostischen lnterpretation der oden salomos
la; Der syrischi Texide, Edition in istrangeld. Faksimile des
griechischen Papyrus and more complex i;;"; in ae tjd"t themselves which may have
Btodmer kl.2: vollsnndige wortkonkordinz zur handschriftlichen, grie.chischen'
se|"!" ZNW 82
ioptfschen, lateinischen ind syrischen Aberlieferung der Oden Sa.lomos.^Mi.t
einem 14 .wie alt ist die Allegorie, daB Christus (Messias) der wahre salomon
Faksimile des Kodex N.3: Foischungsgeschichtliche Bibtiographie
1799-1984 mit
(r99r) 279.
kritischen Anmerkungen. Mit einem Etit'og uo' Majella Franzmann: l^\tyd!
of the 15 .Christus als >wahrer Salomci< in der friihen Kirche', ZNW 84 (1993) l l l-34'
Odes of Solomon witt Reprence to the Freich Scholarship 1909-1980 (O^rbis Biblicus
16 Cf. some ot *V priuili'p"p"it, -tiigzl The^Apocryphal Odes of Solomon and New
'
et Orientalis, ZS't-f; irliUurg, Schweiz and G6ttingen 1979 ll-21'
1980 [la]' 1986
Testament w.ir,rrrj];fr ti:ii "e 2s440li;'Zur Bilderspra che det o d e n
unn,'ih, odrl'o7 soto*on: An Analysis of the Poetical structure and
[3]); M. Franzm Salomos', SYmboton 6 (1982) 95-1 10'
and Gtittingen
Form (Novum Testamentum et brbis Antiquus, 20; Freiburg, schweiz
199 I ).

50 Michael Lattke
influenced texts and other traditions especially of the second century. This
aspect is important not only for the so-called Wirkungsgeschichte visible
for example in Lactantius, Ephrem and Plsris Sophia but also for the
problem of dating the Odes. But will it ever be possible to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that a text of the early second century, or even the late
first century, shows traces of the Odes of Solornon?
In order to establish the probability that the Odes existed by the end of
the second century I shall begin with a quotation from chapter 2 of the
Untitled Text in the Coptic-Gnostic Bruce Codex which stems from the
first half of the third century.
The second place (r6nos) came into existence which will be called
demiurge (6qlttoupyds) and father and logos ()dyos) and source
(nttyil and understanding (minfi @o2s) and man and eternal 1d6tos)
and infinite kiTlpavros). ... And the stretching out of his hands is
the manifestation of the cross (oraupds). The stretching out of the
cross (oraupds) is the ennead livveris) on the right side and on the
left. The sprouting of the cross (oroupds) is the incomprehensible
man.l7
At the beginning of the third century the African Minucius Felix said in
his Octavius, concluding his remarks on the cross (29.3-8): crucis signum
est, et cum homo porrectis manibus deum pura mente veneratur (29.8).18
'And [it is the sign of a cross] when a man, with hands stretched out,
adores God with a pure mind' (Ante-Nicene Fathers 4.191). At the same
time or even earlier, towards the end of the second century, Tertullian
concluded an anti-Jewish passage as follows: Nos uero non attollimus
tantum, sed etiam expandimus, et dominica passione modula<ta>, tum et
orantes confitemur Christo (De oratione 14; cf. CChr.SL 1.265.6-8
Diercks). 'We, however, not only raise, but even expand them [i.e., our
handsl; and, taking our model from the Lord's passion, even in prayer we
confess to Christ' (Ante-Nicene Fathers 3.685).
Tracing this particular symbolism back to the second century we do
not yet find it in the Firsl Apology of Justin Martyr who called the symbol
(oXfipa) of the cross in the world p<6opos) 'the greatest symbol of his
[i.e., Christ's] might and ruling power' (ro p(yrcrov oiltBdou rfis
ioxios t<ai dpyfis airoi) (55.2).te Since there is no other text of the first
and second centuries containing this symbolism, Ode 27 which is almost
identical with the opening lines of Ode 42 might have been known to
Tertullian and/or Minucius Felix.
t7
C. Schmidt and V. MacDermot, The Books of Jeu and the Untitled Text in the Bruce
Coder (Nag Hammadi Studies, 13; Leiden 1978) 226.18-227.18.
l8 B. Kytzler, M. Minucius Felix, Octavius (Miinchen 1965) 166-169.
l9 E. Goodspeed, Die dltesten Apologeten. Texte mit kurzen EinleitunSen (Gdttingen
l9l4; repr. 1984) 66. On the symbol of outstretched hands cf. also Dialogue with
Trypho 4O.3,91.1-3, especially 91.3 (6Lri re ro0 rirou rfi; irrcioeas r6v yerydv
roA Muwius): Goodspeed, L37,205. Moses' hands are seen as a symbol of victory.
Dating the Odes of Solomon 51
Ode27
1 I extended my hands and hallowed my Lord;
,)
because the itretching out of my hands is his sign,
5 and my extension thJwood which [is] upright'2o
Ode 42:l-2a
1 I extended my hands and drew near towards my Lord;
because the itretching out of my hands is his sign,
2 andmy extension [is] the extended wood,
that was hung up up-on the way of the upright one'21
Both texts are extremely difficult to interpret. What is the exact meaning of
'extension', simplicitaslririldrr1s (cf. Rom. l2:8;2 Cor' 8:2;9:11, 13;
f i::; gph. 6:51 or liberalitas,'generosity'? The Syriac word-for 'wood'
(qay'sdf and especially the additiron of 42:2b may have -b"-"n 1'!:".nt-"9 Uy
ihe'terminology of Deut. 2l:22; Acts 5:30; 10:39; Gal' 3:13 (iti {ilou'
rcpepdv or t<p(pao9aL).
Let me continue with Montanos whose prophetic work began either in
15617 according to Epiphanios (Panarion haer. 48.1) or in 172 on
Eusebios' reckoiing (ihionicte).I do not think that the Odes of Solomon
are Montanist as wai claimed by F.C. Conybeare and S.A, Fries as early as
lgtl.22 When these two scholars published their articles Papyrus Bodmer
XI was still unknown. But the Odes may have been known to Montanos'
And since Montanism is, according to K. Aland, a 'Restauration urchrist-
licher Gedanken und Formen',23 some passages of the Odes may have had
an impact on Montanos and his followers.
According to Epiphanios, Panarion haer.48.4, Montanos-says: i6oi,
6 tiv1punos 6oei iipa, rtiyd iginrapat doei tlArcrpov. 6 du1puros
ro,r,lriror,-tctiyd ypTyopti.' i6oi, rtjpt6s ioru 6 i{rcrcivuu rap\tas
rivbpurau Kai 6t6oiS t<ap6(av riu1parotg.z4 Montanos, who speaks in
the name of the Father, the son and the Paraclete, compares the human
being with a lyre over which the deity flies like the plectrum- The human
bein! sleeps and the deity is awake. The Lord changes the hearts of the
humin beings and gives a [new] heart to them.2s
Let us io*p*" this prophecy of Montanos with two passages of the
Odes of Solomon.
(ii'As
the [hand/wind] moves in the kithara, and the strings speak, so
speaks in my mimbers the Spirit of the Lord, andI speak by his love' (Ode
6:l-2:Franzmann, 41; cf. Ode l4:8 and26:3).
20 Cf. Franzmann (above n.l3) 204'
2l Cf. Franzmann (above n.l3) 282'
22 F.C. Conybeare,'Th" Od"t of Solomon Montanist', ZNW 12 (1911) 7G-75; S'A' Fries'
,Die Odin Salomos. Montanistische Lieder aus dem 2. Jahrhundert', ZNW 12 (1911)
108-125.
23 ,Montanismus', Die Retigionin Geschichte undGegenwart 4 (1960) 1117-18.
,
24 Cf. N. Bonwetsch, Texti zur Geschichte des Montanismus (Kleine Texte, 129; Bonn
l9l4) 17.8-12; A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des urchristentums urkundlich
dars,estellt (Leipzig 1884; repr. Darmstadt 1966) 591 nr. 2'
25 A. iilgenfeld (see previous note) 592'
52 Michael lattke
(ii) 'You gaye your heart, Lord, to your believers' (Ode 4:3c: Franz-
mann, 25). The opening of Ode 4 speaks about God's holy place and has
also been connected with Montanism.
In the seventh-century Doctrina patrum de incarnatione verbi (ed. F.
Diekamp tl9071 306.7-tO;20 we find an interesting quotation of Montanos
€r rdu Q6riv, wbtch are not necessarily Odes of Montanos himself : ptav
6 Xptords tyet rfiv giow rai rqu Cv(pyeLav rcai rpd rfis oapt<os rai
perd rfis oapx6s, [ua p.i1 &risopos y(uqraL, riu6pota rcai &eiQopa
npcirrau (ch. 41, XIV; cf. Bonwetsch, 32.13-16; Hilgenfeld, 591 nr. 6).
'Christ has one nature and activity before and after the flesh (i.e., incarn-
ation), lest he become different, doing dissimilar and different things.'
According to Hilgenfeld this statement does not presuppose Mono-
physitism and Monothelitism of the 5th and 7th centuries (592 n.1001).
Again we may consider a crucial passage of the Odes which has always
caused exegetical difficulties.
(iii) 'The Messiah in truth is one' (Ode 41:l5a: Franzmann, 216).Is it
possible that the Christological statement of Montanos is an early
commentary on an enigmatic and emphatic poem? It is the emphasis
(.(ii-::-bairdri) which distinguishes the Ode'sline from the hymnic
e[s riptos 'lqooAs Xprcr6s of I Cor. 8:6 (cf. also Ign. Magn.7.2: dtri
tva'lqoo1v Xprcr6v).27
If there is an echo of the Odes in these fragmentary utterances of
Montanos then many more passages of the Odes have to be investigated in
the light of what we know of the Montanist movement' The starting point
could still be the survey of Fries, already noted. Here are a few examples'
(t) Ode 4:1-4 may stand behind the Montanist prophecies about the
holy places Tymion and Pepuza in Phrygia where the new Jerusalem is
expected (Fries, 115).
(ii) The 'Milk of God' passages (Odes 8:17; especially 19:1-5; cf.
35:6) may be an important link in the development of the Montanist milk-
sacrament (Fries, I 15-16).
(iri) Ode 33 may be one root of the prophetic self-understanding of the
virgin prophetess Priscilla (Fries, 116-17).
The most important aspect, however, in the context of this paper's
specific topic is the following one. If Montanos' knowledge and use of the
Odes is highly probable, the terminus ad quem of the Odes is with the
same probability mid-second century. It does not matter whether at that
time they were already called Odes of Solomon or not. The quotation of
Montanos 'from the Odes' suggests, however, that they were already called
Odes. And from this we may draw the conclusion that as early as that date a
Greek version of the Odes was in circulation.
There are a few supportive arguments for this which all come from the
school of Valentinos.
26 Cf. 2nd ed. of Franz Diekamp's Doctrina, with corrections and additions of B. Phan-
oursakis, ed. by E. Chrysos (Miinster l98l) 306'
27 Cf.ivt. I-attt<e, 'Die Messias-stellen der Oden Salomos', in C. Breytenbach and H.
Paulsen (eds), A nfiinge der Christologie (Gdttingen l99l) 42945' esp. 442-5.
Dating the Odes of Solomon 53
(i) Ptolemaios compared in his letter to Flora (A)dpa) the addressee
with 'a beautiful and good land' (rca)i1 yfi rai dya9i) which reveals 'the
fruit' (rdv rcapn6v) of the 'seeds' (orcppctraz) (Epiphanios, Panarion
haer.33.7.10).28 This simile (ajs) reminds us of Ode 11:12b: dyev1pqv
ajs fldn yfi 1ril)ouoa r<ai ye)rioa rots rcapnots airfis.'I became like the
earth, sprouting and laughing by its fruits' (Franzmann, 88). However,
both the language of the Ode and the imagery of Ptolemy may have been
inspired by Matthew l3:8: dMa 6i treoev iri rqv yfiu rriv rca)qv rai
e6(6ou r<apr6u.
(ii) We will later see that the phrase rarfip rfis d)q9e iac in 2
Clement may go back to Ode 4l:9. But already here we have to ask
whether the Odes of Solomon also had an impact on Heracleon who
flourished from about 145 to 180 as a disciple of Valentinos. In his
commentary on John 4:21 we find the same expression.2e
(iii) The third disciple of Valentinos to be mentioned, before we come
to the teacher himself, is Marcus Gnosticus. According to Irenaeus he said:
'Ayuoiag 6i )iots rj eniyvaots airol eytvero(Haer.1.15.2;.:o '11r"
knowledge of the Father was removal of ignorance.'3l This antithetical
parallelism is also found in Ode 7:21: 'For ignorance was destroyed,
because the knowledge of the Lord came' (Franzmann, 55).
Let me now take one step further. Clement of Alexandria has preserved
part of a homily of the Gnostic theologian Valentinos who lived at Rome
from c.136 to c.165. The text is found in Strom. 6.52.34:
ii6a 6i Kai r(iv rfiv rcotvdrqra rpeopeudvrav 6 ropu$atos
Oia)evrtvos dv rfi rcpi Silav 6pd(,9 rcard A$w ypri$et' IId)d
rriv yeypapp(vav €v rats \r1pooiag Fi/)ots eiptorcerru y€ypap-
p&a iv rfi trdqoiq roa 0eo0. ra ydp t<otuci, raArci iort rd dnd
rcap\ias fiqpara, v6pos 6 ypanrds du rap6ig. o016g ionv 6 Aads
28 For the Greek text in full (edv yedg raLil y4 rai tiyalil yovipuv oneppcirav ruxoiroa
rbv 6L' aitiu raprdv dva6ei{4s) cf. G. Quispel, Ptol€mde, Lettre d Flora. Analyse,
texte critique, traduction, commentaire et index grec,2tl.d ed. (Sources chrdtiennes,
s6rie annexe de textes non chr€tiens, 24 bis; Paris 1966) 72 and W. Vdlker, Quellen
zur Geschichte der christlichen Gnosis (Sammlung ausgewiihlter kirchen- und
dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften, NF 5; Tiibingen 1932) 93. Cf. German
translation of H. Leisegang , Die Gnosis (Krdners Taschenausgabe , 321, Leipzig 1924 =
5th ed., Stuttgart 1985) 308: 'wenn du wie ein schdnes und gutes Stiick Land, das
keimkr?iftige Samen erhalten hat, die durch sie erzeugte Frucht ans Licht gebracht
29
hast'.
Fragment 20; cf. A.E. Brooke, 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) 77.16-17,
30 Cf. N. Brox, Ireniius von Lyon, Epideixis, Adversus haereses-Darlegung der
apostolischen Verkiindigung, Gegen die Htiresien I (Fontes Christiani, 8/l; Freiburg
1993) 2M-245.
3l Cf. also Corpus Hermeticum 13.8 according to w. Bauer, 'Die Oden Salomos', in E.
Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher (eds), Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher
Abersetzung, Bd. lll. Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes (Tiibingen, 3rd ed.
1964) 576-625:'Es kam zu uns die Erkenntnis lyvtioLs) Gottes; durch ihr Kommen
wurde die Unkenntnis (ciyvoLa) vertrieben' (586).

54 Michael l.attke
6 ro0 rjyanqpivou 6 QAoipevos rcai Qddv air6v (Hilgenfeld,
300-30r).
And even Valentinos the head of those who cultivate the community
writes in the homily On Friends as follows: 'Much of what has been
written in books used by the public is found as written in God's
Ekklesia. For the common things are: the words from the heart, [and]
the law written in the heart [cf. Rom. 2:15]. This is the Beloved One's
people that is loved and loves him.'
Clement adds a note on the books mentioned by Valentinos: A1ltooiag
ydp Bifious, etre rds iou\ai'Kds )iyq ypaficis, etre rds rdv
$AoodQatu, tcoLvororct rqv d)fi1etav {Strom. 6.53.1: Hilgenfeld, 301).
'For whether he refers to the Jewish writings or to those of the
philosophers as public books, he makes the truth common property''
Hilgenfeld is probably right in saying that Valentinos himself does not
refer to philosophical but only to holy writings, 'nur heilige Schriften, in
welchen Juden und Christen, das alte und das neue Volk Gottes, dessen
Offenbarung zu besitzen glaubten' (301).
There was of course no biblical canon at the time of Valentinos, who
is most certainly acquainted with holy writings which only later were
labelled as apocryphal, or were disputed, and separated from the canonical
ones. The last sentence of the homily's fragment may well be an allusion
to Pauline and Johannine passages (cf. dyanda and especially the participle
fiyam1pfuoe). But at the same time the statement 'This is the Beloved
One's people that is loved and loves him' sounds like a summary of Ode
3,32 which is provided in translation here to give one more or less
complete example.
Ode3
I ---Iamputtingon,
2 and his members are with him,
and in them I hang.
And he loves me.
3 For I should not have known to love the Lord,
if he did not love me.
4 Who can distinguish love,
but he who is beloved?
5 I love the Beloved,
and my soul loves him.
And where his rest [is],
I am also.
6 And I shall not be a stranger,
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 c. Markschies,
Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen Zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem
Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament,65; Tiibingen 1992). As far as I can see, Markschies does not mention
the Odes ofsolomon in his interpretation ofFragment 6 (186-204)'
Dating the Odes of Solomon 55
because there is no jealousy with the Lord Most High and
merciful.
7 I have been united,
because the lover has found him, the Beloved,
because I shall love him, the Son,
in order that I will be the Son'
8 For he who cleaves to him who is immortal,
he also will be immortal.
9 And he who chooses the life
will be living.
10 This is the Spirit of the Lord who is without falsehood,
[the Spirit] who teaches men that they might know his [the
Lord'sl ways.
11 Become wise and get to know and wake up'
Halleluja.33
where and when did clement of Alexandria, who lived from about 150
to 215, find the homily and other writings of Valentinos? Where and when
did valenrinos himself write his homily, in Egypt already (i.e. before 135)
or not until he came to Rome, or even later when he left Rome (in 165)?
Exact answers to these questions may no longer be attainable, but if it is
true that the statement of Valentinos is a reflection of Ode 3 the terminus
ad quem of this book of poems moves back. from the mid-second century
(provided the Montanist illusions are true)34 to the first half of the second
century.
Again, as with Montanism, traditions of valentinianism will reveal
more iifluences of the Odes; cf. especially Irenaeus and the Excerpta ex
Theodoto in Clement of Alexandrii! o.g., the interpretation of the Xtrrivag
\epltariuou.s (Gen. 3:21) in Exc. $55 (cf. Cl.Al., Strom.3'95'2): tots
,ptbi, doapriroq ini ro0 'A6dp r€raprou rdu 1olrc6v, rois 6eppa-
riyous: ytrriuag gtilgenfeld, 359 n.604 on 'dem sinnlichen Fleische');35
cf. 'garments of skin'-in Ode 25:8. Other examples include Aeons (Ode
l2:4, Exc.7.1) and Middle Place (Ode 22:2,ken. 1.7.1;2.30'2).
33 Cf. translation and structural analysis ofthis 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 forihis step of dating is perhaps given by Tatian's Diatessaron if the variant
.bas (poy)ofi of Sheol', is dependent ot Ode l7-:9; cf . S.
reading of Matthew 16:18,
Words in Syriac', in A. Dietrich (ed.), Synkretismus
Brock].Some Aspects of Greek
im syrisch-persiichen Kulturgerie, (Giittingen 1975) 80-108' esp' 95-8; cf' also my
discussion of poXA6S and other Greek words in the Odes, 'Die griechischen Wiirter
im syrischen Texi der Oden Salomos', in the forthcoming Sebastian Btock Festschrift
(Oxford 1994).
35 if. text and translation ofF. Sagnard, Climent d'Alexandrie, Extaits de Thiodote.
Texte grec, introduction, traduction et notes (Sources chr6tiennes, s€rie annexe de
textes non chr6tiens, 23; Paris 1948; com. repr. 1970) 170-171: Toig rryoiv
rioupciroL| iri rotr 'A6dp riraprov irev\iera 6 yoir6g, roig \epparivoug
yrrilrrg..Sur Adam, par-dessus les trois €ldments immat6riels, I'homme (<terrestre>
l'5'5'
ls1otrds) en arev6tu un quatriEme: <les tuniques de peaux>'i cf' Iren' Haer'
56 Michael Lattke
Dating r/re Odes of Solomon 57

Let us now look at a phrase in 2 Clement, one of the writings of the 11 But I stood undisturbed like solid rock,
which is beaten by waves and endures'
so-called Apostolic Fathers. This 'Mahnrede' can be dated to about 130-50.
There is a general connection with Gnostic terminology.3e In 3.1 and 20.5
LZ And I suffered their bitterness because of lowliness,
in order that I might save my people and instruct it,
the unknown author calls God rarfip rfis riln9efus. This expression does
13 and might not render void the promises which [were] to the
not occur in the New Testament or in any other writing of Early
patriarchs,
Christianity. It appears also, however, in a rather gnosticising context, in
which I promised for the salvation of their seed.ao
Ode 4ll.9.'[8] They will marvel, all those who see me, because from
another race am I. [9] For the Father of truth ((ii-'r ,<-=K----abd
The next and last item makes it explicit that the author of Barnabas
dasrdrd)remembered me, he who gained me from the beginning''37
was referring to a source. In Barn. 11.10, a'prophetic saying ofuncertain
If it is possible 1s s[sv7-6nd indeed, it is-that, apart from this origin',41 we find the phrase 6€v5pa apata. This new formation ('Neu-
genitive expression, there are more gnostic or gnosticising traditions in 2
Clement and in contemporary parts of the Apostolic Fathers (like Barnabas bildung'; cf. Wengst, 173) was certainly influenced by Genesis 3:22-'24
and Ezikiel 47:l-12. However, the exact wording is not yet found in the
and Diognetus), allowing conceptual and contextual links to the Odes, what
conclusion is to be drawn? I think the conclusion must be that the Septuagint. But it occurs in Ode 11:16c, the first line of a six line vision-
ary desiription of the paradise only preserved in the Greek version of Ode
tenninus ad quem of the Greek Odes moves back again, this time from the
first half to the first quarter of the second century.38
li: €1eaiciltqu 5€v6pa apae a rcai rcaproQdpa, 'I saw mature. and
Support for this comes from the Epistle of Barnabas which can be fruitbearing trees' (Franzmann, 89). If Barnabas found the phrase 6iv6pa
dpata in the paradisology of Ode 11, the question must be asked whether
dated to c.B}fi3Z.In Barn. 5.5-7 we find a discussion of the question why
his reference io trepos rpoQfirrls (Barn. I L9) had the author of the Greek
'the Lord of all the world' (travrds' ro0 r1opou dptog)'endured to suffer
v v nepi rfis *uXis iprnv).Part of the Odeinmind.
for our life' Q)ndpe rye na1ee
fulfil the promise made to the This brings us very close to the time when Ignatius of Antioch wrote
answer given to this question is, 'in order to
his letters in which we find numerous parallels to the Odes. But it brings
fathers, and himself to prepare for himself the new people' (tva rotg
us also closer to the period around the turn of the first century from which
rarpdotv r4u etayydhv dno6Q rcai airdg iaurQ rdv )adv rdv t<atudu
quite a few of those writings originate that are now part of the New
irotpri(uu rcr).).3e
Testament, i.e., the Corpus Johanneum (especially the Fourth Gospel and
This statement may be an allusion to Romans 15:8: Eis rd BeBatfioaL
1 John), the pseudo- and deutero-Pauline letters (especially Colossians,
rdg inayydiag rriv nar(pav. But Paul's words do not explain in full
Ephesians and 1 Timothy), Hebrews and the letters ascribed to Peter
the text of Barnabas. So we turn to the Odes again for a fuller explanation.
(especially 1 Peter). This latest stage of origin of the New Testament
Ode 3l:8-13 speaks of condemnation, endurance, suffering, my people and
writings must also be the time of origin of the Odes- In H. Koester's
the promises to the patriarchs:
words: 'They may have been written at about the same time as the
prologue of the Gospel of John, but a date in early II C'E' is just as
8 And they condemned me,
likelY.'+z
while I stood firm;
In conclusion I would like to raise the following question: Why did an
me, who had not been condemned.
early Christian, or group of Christians, write these Odes? The answer to
9 And they divided my spoil,
this question may be found in the New Testament itself. It may be similar
while nothing was owing to them.
l0 But I myself endured and kept silence and was still, to thi reason why someone wrote the apocryphal correspondence of the
that I might not be disturbed by them.
Corinthians with Paul called 3 Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9 where Paul
mentions a previous letter), and another person composed the apocryphal
36 letter of Paul to the Laodiceans (cf. Col. 4:16l).
Cf. K. Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift
an Diognet (Schriften des Urchristentums, 2; Darmstadt 1984) 203-80, esp. 214 and
There is a passage in Colossians 3:16 and, obviously dependent on
227. that, in Ephesians 5:19 where psalms, hymns and (spiritual) odes are
37 Franzmann, 275: cf. geds rtls ril11eias in 2 Clem. l9'1, and already I Esra S [= 3 mentioned. Since we do not know of any other early Christian book of
Ezra1,l4:40, eiAoy4rds 6 1eis rfis d)q?eias-benedictus Deus veritatis.
38 Hermann Jordan in his Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur (Leipzig 1911) 40 Franzmann, 226-227; cf. Wengst, 148-151.
suggested already the time around 125 as date of origin for these Greek products of 4l W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
early Christian poetry (458-9). In my commentary on the Odes I shall discuss the Literature, 2nd ed. revised and augmented by F.W. Gingrich and F.W' Danker
problem of dating on a broader basis, especially in response to L. Abramowski, (Chicaso and London 1979) 897 '
39
'sprache und Abfassungszeit der Oden Salomos', Oriens Christianus 68 (1984) 80-90. 42 i{. Ko"-.t"r, History and Liierature of Early Christianiry (Phila6elphia" Berlin and New
Cf. x. t-ate, The Apoitolic Fathers, l: I Clement, II Clement, Ignatius' Polycarp' York 1982) 217.
Didache, Barnabas (London l9l2; repr. 1977) 354-357, especially 357.
58 Michael lattke Dating theOdes of Solomon 59

odes, it is possible that this reference led to the production of mythological Appendix
and poetical odes later called the 42 Odes of Solomon and combined with Chronological table of manuscripts, quotations, canon-lists and editions
the 18 Psalms of Solomon to form a collection of 60 pieces of religious
poetry. A.D. MANUSCRIPTS QUOTATIONS LISTS EDMONSErc.
I would like to close with some considerations of H. Koester, whose (Greek/Copt:/Syr.) (Copt./Lat./Syr.) (Canon) (Copt.iGreeklSyr.)
works have inspired my studies in the history and literature of Early
Christianity.
S (-?-r G
It is still an open question whether the Odes of Solomon should ... be
called a gnostic hymnbook. Although the gnostic character of many of 200 PBodm. XI (O)
these concepts cannot be doubted, it is quite likely that gnostic images
and terms expressing the individual's hope for a future life and 250 *Pistis Sophia (P+O)
resurection were not limited to communities committed to gnostic 304113 (1,T Lactantius (O [+ P?])
theology but had become much more widespread. If this was
the case, 350 A(P+O) (C.?) Ephrem
this oldest Christian hymnal attests that Gnosticism affected the
language of early Christian piety in Syria very deeply indeed.a3 600 Ps.-Athanasios (P+O)
850 Nikephoros (P+O)
U niv e rs ity of Qu e e ns land MICHAELLATTKE
850 (Syr. Codex in N?)
900 N (O+P)
1300 (Syr. Codex in H!)
1400 H (O+P)
(Coptic Odes)
1799 C.G. \Moide
1812 F. Miinter
1853 M.G. Schwartzel I .H. Petermann
1891 A. Harnack
1925 C. Schmidt

(Greek P^sSoL l+ Odes))

1891 H.E. Ryle/IM.J. James

(Syiac Odes)
1909 J.R. Harris (21911)
19t6120 J.R. Harris/A. Mingana 1-2

(GreekOde ll)
1959 M. Testuz

(Copt., Greek & Syr. Odes)

t973 J. H. Charlesworth (21977)
1979t80t86 M. Lattke l-2, la,3
t991 M. Franzmann

43 (See previous note) 218.