Ben C. Smith wrote:The Jesus Hymn in Philippians 2 seems to utilize this etymology, since the "name above every name" ought to be Yahweh (the tetragrammaton), yet it comes out as Jesus:
Philippians 2.5-11: 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant [μορφὴν δούλου], and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross [θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ]. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Not to be a wet blanket on an otherwise fascinating topic, but the "name above every name" in this passage is not referring to the name "Jesus" but "Lord" (kurios) per verse 11.
I disagree. Verse 10 comes before verse 11, and it has "so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow." Jesus is a name; Christ really is not.
Paul often uses Kurios almost as a personal name for Christ....
I disagree again. My personal name is Ben Smith; it is never Smith Ben (except with a comma when alphabetizing for bureaucratic purposes). Likewise, ancient names have a given order, as well. It is Marcus Antonius, not Antonius Marcus. Julius Caesar, not Caesar Julius. Yet Paul flips back and forth all the time between Christ Jesus and Jesus Christ. If Jesus is a name, then Christ obviously is not. Names do not generally get mixed up like that.
I think that Christ is an epithet (in the traditional sense, not in the modern derogatory sense), like Augustus: one can say Augustus Caesar or Caesar Augustus with equal validity. Also, epithets get translated in ways that names do not; for example, Christ is actually the translation of Messiah; similarly, one frequently translates Augustus as Sebastos in a Greek context. Names are not generally translated in this way: my name derives from the Hebrew for "son of the right hand," yet I am never called "son of the right hand" — I am called Benjamin.
Ben C. Smith wrote:The Jesus Hymn in Philippians 2 seems to utilize this etymology, since the "name above every name" ought to be Yahweh (the tetragrammaton), yet it comes out as Jesus:
Philippians 2.5-11: 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant [μορφὴν δούλου], and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross [θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ]. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Not to be a wet blanket on an otherwise fascinating topic, but the "name above every name" in this passage is not referring to the name "Jesus" but "Lord" (kurios) per verse 11.
I disagree. Verse 10 comes before verse 11, and it has "so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow." Jesus is a name; Christ really is not.
Paul often uses Kurios almost as a personal name for Christ....
I disagree again. My personal name is Ben Smith; it is never Smith Ben (except with a comma when alphabetizing for bureaucratic purposes). Likewise, ancient names have a given order, as well. It is Marcus Antonius, not Antonius Marcus. Julius Caesar, not Caesar Julius. Yet Paul flips back and forth all the time between Christ Jesus and Jesus Christ. If Jesus is a name, then Christ obviously is not. Names do not generally get mixed up like that.
I think that Christ is an epithet (in the traditional sense, not in the modern derogatory sense), like Augustus: one can say Augustus Caesar or Caesar Augustus with equal validity. Also, epithets get translated in ways that names do not; for example, Christ is actually the translation of Messiah; similarly, one frequently translates Augustus as Sebastos in a Greek context. Names are not generally translated in this way: my name derives from the Hebrew for "son of the right hand," yet I am never called "son of the right hand" — I am called Benjamin.
I'm not sure why you keep referring to "Christ". "Christ" wasn't in my point at all. I'm saying "Lord" (i.e. Kurios) is the name of above all names in this passage. And this is not exactly a new interpretation. Anyway, it's late here and I wasn't looking to cross swords. I will address this in more detail later. I don't want to derail your thread so maybe I will start a new one on this Philippians passage tomorrow.
Best,
chazpres
chazpres wrote:I'm not sure why you keep referring to "Christ". "Christ" wasn't in my point at all. I'm saying "Lord" (i.e. Kurios) is the name of above all names in this passage.
You are right; I misread part of what you were saying. But then why does Paul immediately say that it is the name of Jesus to which every knee will bow? If the "name" in question is Lord, why Jesus here?
And this is not exactly a new interpretation.
Sure. Yours is what appears to me to be the most common interpretation, the one most capable of being harmonized with the gospels.
If you read this hymn with no notion of any story which may lie behind it (with no notion of the gospels), does it not sound to you like the name is actually Jesus? "God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow." Does it not look like this figure is actually given the name of Jesus so that he can be acknowledged as Lord, too? The hymn asserts that this figure is given a name, and then it immediately, in the very next clause, speaks of bowing at the name of Jesus.
(This is one of two things regarding this passage that I remember wondering about as a teenager sitting through boring sermons in evangelical churches. The other thing I wondered about was why we took it literally when it says that Jesus took on the likeness of men but figuratively when it said he took on the form of a slave. Both musings I set aside at the time, assuming my elders knew better than I. But now I am free to revisit those points with no restraint.)
understanding is the goal of all efforts, so : what does 2:6-11 say ?
Jesus the pre-existent King Messiah-- one like God-- voluntarily identified himself with the conditions of humanity.
God exalted him in his human condition and given him a name above all others . Which name? The name is Jesus, the son of god in power.
God grants humanity the power to become like Jesus, thorough the good office of His representative, Jesus.
Jesus is exalted like Mohamed and Gautama are. Jesus is named King of Kings , as in the Surah 4:59
O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.
By using google.translate from German, I read in particular:
In fact, these prophets [the Joshua-emulators described by Josephus] might have been eminent in the development of Christianity. A telling reference to the fact that we are dealing with the possible earliest manifestation of the "Jesus movement" (the Jessaioi of the Epiphanius?) In their form of prophecy, gives us the comparison of the following two texts - the one is a quotation from the so-called pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (4th century with older material), the other from the pen of the church historian Eulogius from the 6th century. Both are concerned with a religious dispute among the Samaritans:
Recognitions 1.54
They [the Samaritans] expect a (true) prophet on account of the prophecies of Moses, but were prevented by Dositheus from believing that Jesus was the expected one.
Photius Bibliotheca 230.285
They [the Samaritans] expect a (true) prophet on account of the prophecies of Moses, but were prevented by Dositheus from believing that Jesus was the expected one.
Some believed that Joshua, the son of Nun, said of Moses: A prophet like myself, God the Lord will raise from your brethren (Deut. 18:15); the others, on the other hand, raised an objection, and proclaimed as such a prophet named Dosthes or Dositheus.
More interesting than the connotations which show that both authors have the same phenomenon in mind is the small but decisive difference. While Eulogius speaks of Joshua, the son of Nun (Iēsoun ton Nauē), only Jesus (Jesus) is mentioned in the Recognitions, which can undoubtedly mean only the Jesus of the Gospels within the context. Should the passage handed down by Eulogius contain an older tradition and come from a time when, under Jesus, Joshua, the Son of Nun, is understood the "true prophet" reborn and expected in Pneuma?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Can someone translate better in English the following German quote:
Sie [die Samaritaner] erwarten auf Grund der Prophezeiungen Moses’ einen (wahren) Propheten, wurden aber durch Dositheos gehindert zu glauben, dass Jesus der erwartete sei.
Die einen glaubten, Josua, der Sohn des Nun sei es, von dem Mose gesagt habe: Einen Propheten wie mich wird Gott der Herr aus euren Brüdern erwecken (Dtn 18,15), die anderen erhoben dagegen Einspruch und verkündeten als diesen Propheten jemanden mit Namen Dosthes oder Dositheus.
Very thanks
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
