the Roman practice of Cognomina ex virtute at work in the Hymn to Philippians

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 5528
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

the Roman practice of Cognomina ex virtute at work in the Hymn to Philippians

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:43 am

Scipio became Africanus because he won Hannibal.

Nero Claudius Drusus became Germanicus because he won the Germans.

The list is very more great than I thought!

So wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_R ... ory_titles
This use has an official name: Cognomina ex virtute


So I wonder: if the triumph of Jesus is described already in Paul as a Roman triumph (see, for example, the fate of the Archons), then could also the reception of the Name, in the Hymn to Philippians, be along the same lines of a typical Roman triumph ?

The conqueror assumed the name of the conquered enemy.

Jesus received the Name of YHWH because he defeated the Archon of this World, YHWH himself!


Just as Sabaoth was rewarded by the supreme Unknown Father (not the god of the Jews) as the new Demiurge after the his metanoia and the defeat of the his evil father Yaldabaoth.

So Klaus Schilling:

The situation is similar in various places of Paul, such as Philippans 2:9-11. Sabaoth, while son of Sammael, can also be seen as an adopted son of the Father, the adoption occurring upon the martyrdom/resurrection or the baptise (metanoia). The NH text Hypostasis of the Archons includes the best representation of the myth of the metanoia of Sabaoth.
The judaizer should be seen in circles who deemed intertestamental texts like First Henoch (without parables) or the Testament of Levi important, if not authorative, as they use the circumscription “Great Glory” for the Tetragrammaton.
Apelles, the pet heretic of resident Roger Parvus (not to be confused with Roger Pearse or Richard Pervo), went one step farther and justified also Ialdabaoth (the creator). Two aspects of the OT god , yet both of them commissioned by The Father, would sound like an overkill, yet the development sketched by Magne provides an explanation for this: First one of them was rehabilitated, then the other.
The Catholic Church, of course, identifies The Father with the god of the OT, and the now free role of Sabaoth was transferred to an agent of this OT/NT god; and this agent was constructed to fulfil Scripture, as the new prophet like Moses, the returning Eliyah, and ultimately as the messiah. In doing so, many texts got reworked in the Judaizing sense.

(my bold)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply