The supporters of a Greek original point to certain incidences of speech of which the following are the most striking.
(1) There are some Syriac words which, in their present context, do not explain or amplify the idea that the Odist had in mind. Three principal instances are given in proof of this assertion. In Ode vii. the expression ' by His simplicity ' would be used to translate the phrase iv tJ air\6Ti)TL ai/rou. In Ode xxxiv. the sentence ' No way is hard where there is a simple heart, nor is there any wound in right thoughts ' would contain the Greek words dirXoDs for 'simple' and fsTrXij^is for ' wound ' ; the expression ' in the midst ' in Ode XXX., 'and until it (the spring of water) was given in the midst, (they did not recognize it),' would be also a translation of a Greek tis t6 /i4a-ov TiBivai, because such an expression, it is said, is not Semitic.
(2) Great stress is laid on the use of the privative alplia. It is suggested that almost all the words beginning in Syriac with the negative particle are a translation from the Greek. The Syriac expres- sion meaning 'without grudging,' 'abundantly,' which is employed several times in the Odes (cf. Ode xi.), would be the Greek a.<j>Bl>vuii; the word ' indescribable ' in the sentence ' the swiftness of the Word is indescribable ' would be a translation of avcKSiiiyriTos. We must remark, however, that the first expression is found twice in the Book of the Laws of Countries of Bardesanes, which is surely a genuine Syriac composition.
We do not wish to dwell on some other Hellenic features discovered in the book of the Odes, such as the concept of ' taking refuge,' which is the real meaning in the first verse of Ode xxv., while the Syriac verb suggests only the idea of ' fleeing ' ; likewise the argument taken from the employment of the possessive particle, which is used eight times only in all the Odes, does not seem to be convin- cing. Cf. on this question the article of Connolly in JThSt xiv. [1913] 530, and that of D. Willey, ib. p. 293 2'. ; and cf. it with our study referred to above.
Finally, on account of the remarkable variants which sometimes ditierentiate the Syriac and the Coptic versions from one another, the supporters of a Greek original need also to resort to the hypothesis of two dill'erent Greek texts, one under- lying the Coptic version preserved in Pistis Sophia, and another underlying the Syriac version of our MSS. This is a fact worthy of study ; and, so far as we are aware, no sufficient explanation of it has been given. On the other hand, as Harris has rightly pointed out, a sacred book entitled S^oXmoJ Kai 'QSal ZoXofiCivTos is mentioned by pseudo-
ODES OF SOLOMOiS^
ODES OF SOLOMON
105
At.hanasius, and in the Stichometnj of Niceiihonis (9th cent.). On the hypothesis that this title refers to our Syriac Odes, it is almost certain that a Greek version was in circulation several centuries before the time of these ecclesiastical writers.
i. Their relation to the Bible. — Though the main ideas that the Odist expresses are drawn from figures used in the Old and New Testaments, no direct quotation from a sacred book can be clearly pointed out; it would almost seem tlmttlie author had made up his mind not to use quotations. A list of the principal semi-quotations, or, as Wellhausen calls them, ' Biblisms,' will be found below.
The title itself, ' Odes of Solomon,' brings the whole collection, at least in the mind of the copy- ists and of some ecclesiastical writers, such as Lactantius, into relation with the Bible. The last-named writer seems to have believed the Odes to be as canonical and autlioritative for Christian doctrine as the Davidic Psalter. No sufficient ex- planation has yet been given of their attribution to Solomon, in preference to all other sacred writers. The question is not in itself very im- portant ; but, if it were cleared up, the problem might prove not to be devoid of interest with regard to many obscure points arising from this precious discovery.
Critics have generally fallen back, in this matter, on the statement of 1 K 4'-, in which we are informed that Solomon wrote 1005 odes. Solomon was known to have written odes, and our actual Odes, by a natural course of events, readily assumed his name. This assumed Solo- monic authorship would account, as F. C. Burkitt (JThSt xiii. ) has pointed out, for the obstinate silence that the anonymous writer maintains with regard to some elementary Christian practices and his avoidance of any clear prophetical or evangeli- cal quotations.
All this is pure speculation ; the important point is that no proper biblical name and no direct biblical quotations are to be noticed in the Odes, though their nucleus mainly consists of biblical elements. On this subject the most striking semi- quotations are the following :
Ode V. 8 : ' For they have devised a counsel, and it did cot succeed '(cf. Ps 21").
Ode xxvi, 11 : ' Who is able to interpret the wonders of the Lord?' (cf. Psl062).
Ode xxi.\. 10 ; * Like the stubble which the wind carries away * (ct. Ps I'').