Inquiry regarding the Christ hymn of Philippians 2.6-11.

[Secret Alias]

And let me state for the record that I like DCH. He's actually taken the time to learn a little Hebrew and recognizes the importance of the Jewish cultural influence on early Christianity. I admit the idea that Jews have always had these 'nutty' mystical interpretations of scripture is a bridge too far for him. But that's the reality. The Torah has always been the mere 'outer skin' of a profound mystical truth hidden within and 'opened' through knowledge passed on my oral tradition. I admit what I write about is difficult to swallow being our cultural assumptions don't work like that. But don't shoot the messenger. It's the way it is.

Like most people he wants 'firm' concepts to evaluate. But when we are forced to find the hermeneutic key behind 'the name above all names' which is lost, we are reduced to guesswork and speculation. That's the reality again.

[DCHindley]

I admit the idea that Jews have always had these 'nutty' mystical interpretations of scripture is a bridge too far for him.

I changed this post to respond to SH's statement above, simply because there can be more substance to it (i.e., my response).

No, that was NOT my intention. The original 13th century Jewish author was referring to nuts (as a metaphor for knowledge) and I was suggesting that this forum has a lot of "nuts" (as a metaphor for persons whose minds have "cracked" like the shell of a nut) as members (not you Peter, of course).

As for whether I consider medieval Kaballists "nuts" (as in the latter usage above) I do not.

Do I think Jewish mystics existed earlier, I certainly do.

The author of the Enochic Book of Watchers, who describes a vision about a series of seven concentric crystal castles), wrote in the 3rd or early 2nd century BCE). That doesn't mean that their form of mysticism was exactly like the medieval Merkabah ("Throne", of God) mystics, but it seems they did make use of mystical visions, and that some of these were centered on approach towards God himself, an idea expanded upon by the Merkabah mystics 1,500 years later. Unfortunately, because we know so little about Judean mysticism before the 4th century CE (maybe even 8th century CE, IIRC), speculation is easy, yet there is surprisingly more contemporary original source material around (generally fragments) than most folks are aware.

The NT transfiguration of Jesus on the mountaintop and perhaps Paul's vision suggest strongly, to me, that visions had influenced early Christianity, at least as it was developing in proto-orthodox circles in the 1st century CE, or at very least influenced the authors of the four Gospels in the late 1st or 2nd centuries CE. I do not consider this to be either good or bad, just "there", for us to use in crafting our historical narratives that explain them.

I LOVE this kind of mystical speculation! That being said, I do not approve of generating hypothetical relationships between these data points that seem, um, "exaggerated". My impression of those who look for number mysticism, both ancient and modern, is that they always find what they are looking for, so I attribute their findings to be mostly due to functions of the laws of large numbers (calculus).

DCH

[Secret Alias]

Well let's have a discussion about this. There isn't any question that 'the name above all names' has something to do with YHWH right? We can all agree on that. It most certainly did for Isaiah. It is difficult to imagine that Paul didn't know that Isaiah meant YHWH or that he was unaware of the Jewish mystical interest in YHWH. So how do we push all of that to the side and say that Paul put forward the Greek Iesous as higher than the tradition Jewish name above all names? How is it even possible? It has to have something to do with YHWH. So in my mind we are left with YHWH or some mystical development through kabbalah. Do you really think there is another possibility?

[Secret Alias]

And even in the greater context of Philippians there is a sense that whoever IC is he is not 'God' but someone beside him or alongside him:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of IC every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue acknowledge that IC Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

It is a very difficult passage to make sense of. IC is at once identified as:

1. in his very 'nature' God
2. equal to God
3. being made in the likeness of man
4. in appearance man
5. God - who can't be IC - exalts him

This seems IMO to be not so much an exaltation of YHWH the being or God but a separate hypostasis identified as 'the name of Yahweh' almost in a Valentinian sense.

[Secret Alias]

It also seems hard to argue that Clement of Alexandria didn't connect 'the name above of all names" with YHWH:

Again, there is the veil of the entrance into the holy of holies. Four pillars there are, the sign of the sacred tetrad of the ancient covenants. Further, the mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom the adytum was accessible, is called Jave, which is interpreted, "Who is and shall be." The name of God, too, among the Greeks contains four letters.

Now the Lord, having come alone into the intellectual world, enters by His sufferings, introduced into the knowledge of the Ineffable, ascending above every name which is known by sound. The lamp, too, was placed to the south of the altar of incense; and by it were shown the motions of the seven planets, that perform their revolutions towards the south. For three branches rose on either side of the tamp, and lights on them; since also the sun, like the lamp, set in the midst of all the planets, dispenses with a kind of divine music the light to those above and to those below.

The golden lamp conveys another enigma as a symbol of Christ, not in respect of form alone, but in his casting light, "at sundry times and divers manners," on those who believe on Him and hope, and who see by means of the ministry of the First-born. And they say that the seven eyes of the Lord "are the seven spirits resting on the rod that springs from the root of Jesse."[Strom 5.34.7]

Indeed he connects the 'name above all names' with YHWH but it is not YHWH apparently:

And as the Lord is above the whole world (ὑπεράνω τοῦ κόσμου παντός), yea, above the world of thought (μᾶλλον δὲ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ νοητοῦ), so the name engraven on the plate has been regarded to signify, above all rule and authority (οὕτως καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ πετάλῳ ἔγγραπτον ὄνομα ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας εἶναι ἠξίωται); and it was inscribed with reference both to the written commandments and the manifestation to sense. And it is the name of God that is expressed; since, as the Son sees the goodness of the Father, God the Saviour works, being called the first principle of all things, which was imaged forth from the invisible God first, and before the ages, and which fashioned all things which came into being after itself. Nay more, the oracles exhibits the prophecy which by the Word cries and preaches, and the judgment that is to come; since it is the same Word which prophesies, and judges, and discriminates all things. [Strom 5.38.7]

But IMO εἶναι ἠξίωται has the sense of 'held to be worthy' by men. In other words, Clement is clearly holding back. The 'name above all names' has something do to with YHWH but it is not YHWH. There is a secret here.

[Secret Alias]

Here is a parallel use of the expression in Lucian:

So, for my part, when I learned that you give your time to such spectacles, I was not only ashamed on your account but sorely distressed that you should sit there oblivious of Plato and Chrysippus and Aristotle, getting treated like people who have themselves tickled in the ear with a feather, and that too when there are countless other things to hear and see that are worth while, if one wants them — flute-players who accompany cyclic choruses, singers of conventional compositions for the lyre,' and in especial, grand tragedy and comedy, the gayest of the gay ; all these have even been held worthy (εἶναι ἠξίωται) to figure in competitions. [Lucian The Dance 2]

I think this is the same sense Clement uses in his discussion of YHWH as 'name above all names' - viz. there is a secret name related to but beyond YHWH.

[Secret Alias]

And for the author of the Gospel of Truth from Nag Hammadi 'the great name' can't be YHWH or Jesus:

The name of the father is the son. It is he who, in the beginning, gave a name to him who came from him, while he remained the same, and he conceived him as a son. He gave him his name, which belonged to him—he, the father, who possesses everything that exists around him. He possesses the name; he has the son. It is possible for the son to be seen. The name, however, is invisible, for it alone is the mystery of the invisible about to come to ears completely filled with it through the father’s agency. Moreover, as for the father, his name is not pronounced but is revealed through a son. Thus, then, the name is great.

Who, then, has been able to pronounce a name for him, this great name, except him alone to whom the name belongs and the children of the name, in whom the name of the father is at rest, and who themselves in turn are at rest in his name, since the father has no beginning? It is he alone who conceived it for himself as a name, in the beginning before he had created the eternal beings, that the name of the father should be supreme over them—that is, the true name, which is secure by his authority and by his perfect power. For the name is not drawn from lexicons, nor is his name derived from common name-giving. It is invisible. The father alone gave the son a name, because he alone saw him and because he alone was capable of giving him a name. For he who does not exist has no name. For what name would one give him who did not exist? Nevertheless, he who exists exists also with his name, and he alone knows it, and to him alone the father gave a name. He is the father, his name is the son. He did not, therefore, keep it secretly hidden, but it came into existence, and the son himself disclosed the name. The name, then, is that of the father, just as the name of the father is the beloved son. For otherwise, where would he find a name except from the father? But someone will probably say to a friend, “Who would give a name to someone who existed before himself, as if, indeed, children did not receive their name from one of those who gave them birth?”

Above all, then, it is fitting for us to think this point over: what is the name? This is the true name, the name that came from the father, for it is he who owns the name. He did not, you see, get the name on loan, as in the case of others, who receive names that are made up. This is the proper name. There is no one else to whom he has given it. It remained unnamed, unuttered, till the moment when he who is perfect pronounced it himself; and it was he alone who was able to pronounce his name and to see it. When it pleased the father, then, that his son should be his pronounced name, and when he who has come from the depth disclosed this name, he divulged what was hidden, because he knew that the father was absolute goodness. For this reason, indeed, the father brought this particular one forth, that he might speak concerning the realm and his place of rest from which he had come forth, and that he might glorify the fullness, the greatness of his name and the sweetness of the father.

[Secret Alias]

Gospel of Philip too assumes a new name:

Only one name is not pronounced in the world: the name the father gave the son. It is the name above all; it is the father’s name. For the son would not have become father if he had not put on the father’s name. Those who have this name understand it but do not speak it. Those who do not have it cannot even understand it.

[Peter Kirby]

Only one name is not pronounced in the world: the name the father gave the son.

Those who have this name understand it but do not speak it.

I wonder whether the absence of "Jesus" and "Christ" from several texts* has anything to do with this (ie, understood as special names and thus not spoken).

* Naturally it admits of other explanations... e.g., it plays very well into your hypothesis that the figure was not originally named "Jesus" at all.

[Secret Alias]

Could well be. Worth more investigation.