A Conversation with Professor James Charlesworth
Dr. James H. Charlesworth, Princeton’s George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, has written and edited over 60 books on the New Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls, and other Jewish literature. He is also Director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project, which is preparing the text, critical apparatus, introduction, and translation of all the non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls. Professor Charlesworth specializes in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old and New Testaments, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, Jesus Research, and the Gospel of John. Here he answers a few questions about the Odes of Solomon to help shed some historical light on these beautiful songs.


When were the Odes composed?
The date of the Odes has been a focus of debate since 1909 when J. Rendel Harris identified the Odes in a Syriac manuscript on his shelf. Most scholars now conclude that the Odes received their present form about 125 CE (Charlesworth, Lattke). Since a collection of “hymns” or poems would probably not have been written in one year, we should imagine some decades for the composition of these 42 Odes.

In your writings about the Odes, you differentiate between them and “apocryphal” writings. Could you explain the difference?
The Odes are “apocryphal” in that they were “hidden” from modern scholars and others until they were recovered in 1909. They were not hidden in antiquity but were probably originally used in Christian worship (N.B. the “Hallelujah” at the end of an Ode).

What can you tell us about the forms of worship in the synagogue in the 1st Century, following the destruction of the Temple? Was a specific liturgy used, does it still exist in any form, and did it incorporate hymns?
I wish scholars knew how to answer such questions. When the Temple was burned by the invading Roman armies, sacrifice in the Temple ceased. Worship shifted to the thousands of synagogues in and outside the Holy Land. Defining the Bible evolved with reading it liturgically and for study; benedictions shaped Jewish and Christian thought, including the Amida (18 Benedictions). Study of Torah was perceived also to be worship.

Were the Odes ever considered for inclusion in the New Testament canon? Why or why not?
We have no record of a synod who voted on the works to be included in the canon. Probably, the Odes were not important for the Western church, and their celebration of private piety directly to the Creator may have caused them to be unattractive for those who were defining the institutional church.

There seems to be some confusion about the Odes and their relationship to Gnostic heresies. First, please define for us the word “Gnostic” and explain why you are convinced that neither the Odes nor the Gospel of John are Gnostic in nature. Finally, perhaps you can help us understand why the word “Gnostic” is so frequently used—or misused—as a pejorative term in discussions and debates about contemporary Christian culture.
To answer these questions adequately would demand a book. Scholars cannot agree on a definition of “Gnosticism.” To me, it is a philosophical system that began to dominate in some area in the middle of the second century CE. It emphasized a myth that a few humans have “gnosis” (knowledge) because they fell to earth from another world. The only way back to this heavenly abode for these “Gnostics” was to look inside, perceive a spark of knowledge, and from this light remember the way back to an original pristine condition. The Odes (and the Gospel of John) do not emphasize “self knowledge;” they reveal a love and knowledge of the Creator who shows the way of salvation to all who behold the beloved (and not a select few). The term “Gnostic” is used pejoratively today by those in an established institution that fear individuals who have a separate agenda.

In what language were the Odes originally written?
Some scholars think that the Odes were originally composed in Greek (Quasten). Other scholars conclude that they were composed in Syriac (Emerton) or a form of Aramaic-Syriac (Charlesworth). The Greek copy is full of Semitisms and is inferior linguistically to the Syriac, and the latter preserves many features usually typical of an original language (e.g., paronomasia, alliteration, assonance, metrical scheme, parallelism, rhythm). Variants in the extant manuscripts are sometimes explained by a Syriac original text (e.g. brk and krk in 22:6).

Do today’s Syriac liturgies have roots in Temple/synagogue worship?
It would be foolish to deny either the origins of these Semitic liturgies or to miss the creative “Christian” additions and developments.

The Gospels report that after the Last Supper Jesus and His disciples “Sang a hymn and went out.” Do any copies of Jewish hymns from the time of Christ still exist? How much do we know about the role of music in those days, and later in the Early Church?
Before the fourth century CE, “singing” was chanting. Jesus and His followers chanted a “hymn.” What was this hymn? Since the time was Passover, it could have been one of the Davidic psalms or part of the early Passover Haggadah.

You and others think it is possible that the author of the Odes belonged to a sect similar to the Essene/Qumran groups. Would the music of communities or sects such as the Essenes have differed significantly from the music of the Jewish Temple before its destruction, or the music of the post-Temple synagogues?
Only in the Temple before 70 CE would you find the following music: hundreds of Levites chanting, harps, trumpets, drums, flutes, tambourines, and dancing young virgins. In Essene, and other groups, you would find sectarian liturgies and chanting—perhaps without a flute or harp, since in many texts (including the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Odes) an author confesses that his heart or tongue is “his” instrument, harp, or flute.

For how long did Jewish Christians continue to worship in the synagogue alongside Jews who did not believe Jesus was Messiah? Could the Odes of Solomon have been first Jewish and then, as some have said, “redacted” into Christian hymns when the Christians formed their own congregations?
One has to be very careful about talking about “the parting of the ways.” One has to observe the time and place and perceive today some Christians worship, intermittently, with Jews in some churches and synagogues. Some of the Odes may be “Jewish” and others “Christian,” but one needs to define terms precisely.

What can modern Christians learn about spirituality and worship from the Odes of Solomon? And what contributions do you think the Odes of Solomon can offer to the development of contemporary songs and hymns?
Many Christians have come to me as a Methodist minister stating that all their lives they were told to say “mea culpa.” In my opinion, Jesus did not call into being a group of people that defined themselves as sinners who had to spend their lives seeking forgiveness from an angry God. In fact, Jesus gave His life to break such “yokes” of slavery. He showed the way to be free for God and to praise God for the joy of living. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus wished that His “joy” would be completed in His followers. If Christianity is a call to freedom and a joyous relation with a loving Creator then the Odes would be the perfect “hymnbook.”

You mentioned that the Odes of Solomon have helped shape your career since 1966. In what way have they played a particularly significant role in your broader work with ancient document fragments, etc.?
During advanced studies at Duke University, Edinburgh University and the Ecole Biblique de Jerusalem, I was attracted to the Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic texts and other documents that sometimes had been branded inferior to those in a closed canon. As I read some of these early writings, I perceived that God had not talked to humans only in a select list of texts. The Odes were special, and I decided to devote my energies and time to comprehending the genius in them. Why? Because I felt the joy, freedom, love, and oneness with the Beloved that the Odist shared in his masterpieces.

Since 1985, I have been editor and director of the Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. When I began exploring the sacred texts allegedly on the fringes of “the canon,” I never imagined I would hold such an elevated position. Certainly, that way was opened as I focused my Ph.D. dissertation and E.T. [Ecole Biblique] on the Odes of Solomon. My first book was published at the Clarendon Press, Oxford, and is the critical text and translation of these ancient hymns.

The Odes and similar writings have been more or less the domain of scholars, historians and artifacts experts. What are your thoughts about the Fromm/Schreiner Odes Project and its role in popularizing the Odes and making them available to contemporary worshippers?
In my first decade of teaching at Duke University (1969-1979), I was thrilled to perceive the popularity of the Odes and the celebration of my earliest publications. Some musicians rendered the Odes into music for churches and Billy Graham’s magazine featured them as ideal for young Christians. Now the Odes Project is dedicated to reviving this recognition and appreciation. Finally, the edict of the Protestant Reformers (ad fontes) leads us back to the time we were all “Catholics” (global) and when the Odist captured the excitement of God’s joyous reunion with his creatures.

If the Church is conceived to be a collection of sinners who fretfully fear the condemnation of God, the Odes are not an appropriate hymnbook. If the Church is defined as a group of holy people in a closed institution, the Odes do not fit. If the Church is perceived to be a growing number of the faithful who not only yearn for acceptance from a loving Deity, and are loved fully, but who also feel empowered to live joyfully by God’s grace, the Odes are singularly appropriate.

We would like to know more about your enormous body of work with The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. To begin with, can you give us a laymen’s definition of Pseudepigrapha, and explain what kind of literature it encompasses?
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha is a category of ancient Jewish and Christian documents that usually date from about 300 BCE until about 135/6 CE when Bar Kokhba was defeated and the history of ancient Israel ended. Most of the books in this category—which are frequently attributed to Adam, Enoch, Abraham, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Job, or Ezra—were considered by early Jews and Christians to be sacred and full of God’s Word for His faithful followers. It is imperative in studying these books to perceive that when they were written, or compiled from oral traditions, the Bible had not yet been defined, let alone closed. The term “Pseudepigrapha” means writings “falsely” attributed to someone; it can be misleading since the Davidic psalms and the Wisdom of Solomon (as well as the Gospels and some of the letters in the New Testament) are usually judged to be pseudepigraphical.

Within the context of the Pseudepigrapha, are the Odes of Solomon unique? How do the Odes relate and compare to other documents in this larger body of work?
The Odes of Solomon like other documents are pseudonymously attributed to Solomon; among the collection are the Proverbs of Solomon, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Psalms of Solomon. The Odes, unlike the Qumran “Thanksgiving Hymns,” are composed like the Psalms in parallel lines of thought (parallelismus membrorum).

How do you explain the Odes’ unique appeal to scholars?
The Odes of Solomon have attracted Jewish scholars, and specialists on such diverse fields as the New Testament, Jewish-Christianity, Gnosticism, and Patristics. These odes (or psalms or hymns) are attractive because of their poetic language and thought. The dominant theme is joy in experiencing acceptance and love at the appearance of the Messiah: “My joy is the Lord” (7:2). Numerous aspects of Jesus’ life appear in the Odes, including His birth (Ode 19), His baptism (Ode 24), His walking on the water (Ode 39), His elevation on a cross (Odes 27, 42), His resurrection (passion), and His descent into hell (Ode 42). Note the beautiful thought in this excerpt:

Who can interpret the wonders of the Lord?
Though the one who interprets will be destroyed,
Yet that which was interpreted will remain. [Ode 26:11]