Vorkosigan

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I have no idea what Paul thinks, and I don't like playing those speculative games in which we attempt to read the minds of people gone to dust these two thousand years. If it was Paul who included it in his letter, that is prima facie evidence he had no problem with it. I have no idea why he had no problem with it. Perhaps he just thought the words were beautiful or the story was attractive, like those Christians who recommend The Wizard of Oz for children to watch, even though it is a Theosophical tract that is strongly anti-Christian. People are not little robots of consistency and clarity and frequently contradict themselves, especially in letters written years apart, after numerous interactions in which they have examined and re-examined their beliefs.

The issue is not "what did Paul think?" but "what can we demonstrate from Paul's writings that Paul apparently knew about Jesus?" and "what position on Jesus can be derived from Paul's writings?"

I do not see that the hymn contradicts other information available from Paul. It only contradicts the position imputed to Paul by 2,000 years of Church doctrine.

Vorkosigan

ichabod crane

Because people can in good conscience disagree about what is impossible and what is possible. Obviously, if you believe that resurrections are impossible, then you would be a fruitcake if you also believed in it. But not everybody thinks they are so obviously impossible. I don't necessarily believe in the resurrection, but I believe in other things that I'm sure you would label "impossible". That's why I suppose I'm a "fruitcake" (one of the yummy dark variety?)

There goes Plato, Aristotle, and many more ...

But that just assumes that your interpretation is correct. If there are two possible and perfectly reasonable interpretations, one of which is consistent with what else Paul says, and one of which isn't, which is more likely? Was Paul just stupid and contradicted himself?

Interesting stuff on the Wizard of Oz. But I'm sympathetic to Theosophy myself. Wouldn't Blavatsky and co. come under your heading of "fruitcakes", though, given their interest in the paranormal? Maybe you should ban the movie?

Vorkosigan

I specifically described the belief as fruitcake, not the person. All persons agree that resurrections are a physical impossibility. That is why believers impute them to miracles, a suspension of physical impossibility. The real issue here is that I want to know why Don believes Archarya S is some kind of weirdo, but does not make that same judgment about his own beliefs. If there are grounds other than the social acceptability of certain beliefs, they are not evident.

Why? I don't attempt to read Plato's mind, just his writings.

I don't know. Do you think it is "stupid" to hold contradictory ideas? If so, as you put it, there goes Plato, Aristotle, and many more, because we all do that. I don't know who put that hymn in there or why, and no evidence exists that would permit us to speculate on the topic. Therefore I don't. It is worth noting that the hymn breaks the thought in Phil 2:4, which links to Phil 2:12 nicely. Nor does Paul refer back to it later in the text. Perhaps Paul thought it would make a nice digression, perhaps someone inserted it later.

[NIV]
1If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. 12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. 14Do everything without complaining or arguing, 15so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe 16as you hold out[3] the word of life--in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing. 17But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. 18So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.

It doesn't contradict anything in Paul, at least to me, because I don't think the writer of "Paul" saw Jesus as a human figure who had a recent earthly existence. People who get whacked by brutal Roman procurators don't ascend to the heavens trailing the enemies behind them like garments, nor are they said to been slain by demon powers in some demi-heaven above the earth.

Part of the problem is that the letters of Paul are still very unsettled for me. I do not believe that they are writings from before 70. I do not believe they are second century Christian forgeries, nor do I believe that Marcion wrote them. Leidner's assertion that they refer to, and date from, a post-70 Church makes the most sense, but there is no evidence to support it. David Hindley has argued that they are reconstructed letters originally written by a Jew proselytizing for Judaism, and later revised by Christian redactors, but I do not know any Greek and cannot make judgments about that. Acts being a much later fiction, I am completely at a loss to put "Paul" into his proper place in time, and space.

The belief is fruitcake, not the person. As I said.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

That would be fascinatingly relevant if we were discussing how the word is used in the Septuagint but we aren't.

Added later: In addition, it seems to me somewhat disingenuous to use this as an example since "Lord" was used in the Hebrew Bible as a replacement for the name of God which was forbidden to be written or spoken. The use of a title as a replacement for a name does not make that title a name.


We are talking about how it is used in the apparently pre-Pauline hymn of Philippians 2. In that passage, it is clearly used as a title:

"And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord..."

And every tongue should confess that Bob Jones is Ted makes no sense.

And every tongue should confess that Bob Jones is King clearly reflects the intended meaning much better.

The name in question is also clearly identified as "Jesus".

Amaleq13

This would have been a great place to produce specific examples you believe support your claim.

ichabod crane

Since verses 10 and 11 of the pre-Pauline hymn in question are quoting *from the Septuagint*, I think it has some relevance.

The first problem with this is that it assumes that the author of the pre-Pauline hymn could read Hebrew and was familiar with the Hebrew Old Testament. But if they were only familiar with the Septuagint, which is quite likely, then your argument is irrelevant. Secondly, what you say is a half-truth. The name of God was not replaced with the word Lord in the text. Rather, when the text came to have vowel pointing added (which was not until the early middle ages), the name of God was pointed with the vowels for the word Lord. This is because *when the text was read*, instead of pronouncing the name of God, they would substitute the Hebrew for "Lord". They had no problem with writing the name of God, only with saying it.

If it is asserting some sort of equivalency with Yahweh, or that Jesus has inherited the name that Yahweh had, then it makes a lot of sense.

Romans 1:1-4: Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Comment: Who is the Son of God descended from David? Answer: Jesus Christ.

Romans 8:34 Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us.

Comment: Who died? Answer: someone called Christ Jesus.

And so forth.

Amaleq13

Quoting? The phrase every knee will bow may have been derived from Is 45:23 but that hardly constitutes calling both verses a "quote" of the Septuagint. Regardless, it doesn't lend support to the claim that "Lord" is used as a name let alone the name that has already been clearly identified earlier in the hymn.

Amaleq13:...it seems to me somewhat disingenuous to use this as an example since "Lord" was used in the Hebrew Bible as a replacement for the name of God which was forbidden to be written or spoken. The use of a title as a replacement for a name does not make that title a name.

How is this relevant? You claimed that Lord in the hymn should be understood as a name because "In the Septuagint it clearly functions as the name of God." That it "functions as the name" does not make it a name. It is a title used to replace the name. The author didn't need to read Hebrew to be aware of this Jewish practice. Regardless, it is quite clearly being used as a title in the hymn.

It was to the Septuagint you looked for support. You are making less sense with every post. Having familiarity only with the Greek translation does not render them ignorant of Jewish practice.

You claim the name of God was not replaced with "Lord" then proceed to describe the exact procedure by which that replacement clearly takes place. Nice. The name of God was changed to read as "Lord" instead of the Tetragram. The word is first and foremost a title. That it came to be used as though it was the name of God clearly does not establish your argument.

Some sort of equivalency? Like inheriting a title typically associated with God? I agree.

ichabod craneIf there are two possible and perfectly reasonable interpretations, one of which is consistent with what else Paul says, and one of which isn't, which is more likely? Was Paul just stupid and contradicted himself?

Examples to support the above:
The passage is entirely consistent with the hymn. The Son, after the incarnation and resurrection, becomes Jesus Christ our Lord. Young's Literal Translation makes this more clear by including the parentheses:

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, having been separated to the good news of God -- which He announced before through His prophets in holy writings -- concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh, who is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the rising again from the dead,) Jesus Christ our Lord;"

Unfortunately for your argument, Paul is not describing the event as it happened. He is looking back at it from his own time where "the name" has already been given to the Son. I agree that this is consistent with your claim but it is clearly also consistent with mine. Thus, it is ultimately not helpful to your attempt to have the hymn interpreted with a reading other than the most apparent meaning.

ichabod crane

It's not just the phrase "every knee shall bow". It's also the phrase "every tongue shall confess". The wording is nearly identical in each instance; in the first case its kamphei pan gonu in the Septuagint and pan gonu kamphe in Phil. 2:10, in the second instance it's exomologesetai pasa glossa in the Septuagint, pasa glossa exomologesetai in Phil. 2:11. Only the word order and tense of the verb has changed (future indicative to aorist subjunctive), and the word order doesn't affect the meaning in Greek. So it's futile to deny the significant influence, and yes "quotation", of the Septuagint on the hymn.

As I've shown, and could give dozen more examples of, it is used as the name of God throughout the Septuagint. Furthermore, depending on where the hymn originated, it is entirely possible that the person who wrote it had no idea about the Hebrew underlying the text, or the Jewish practice in question.

No, it was to the Septuagint the writer of the hymn turned in the crucial verses, 10 and 11.

Obviously, you don't understand vowel pointing. Putting the vowel points for "Lord" with the name of God does not replace the name of God. The consonants yod-he-vav-he are still there, not the consonants for "my Lord" ('adoni). It would be something like taking the English word "billiard" and substituting the vowels in "video", ending up with "billeord", which is not a word.

No, it was not. You're just plain wrong here; check a Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

Well this is a convenient argument which is impossible to refute. Obviously, Paul is writing after the events in question. So anytime he says anything about "Jesus Christ" doing this, that or the other, you could always say that he was retrospectively injecting the name into the past. In other words, there is no logically possible evidence which could be used to dispute your claim. So why ask me for evidence when it is logically impossible to provide it? Obviously, the straightforward interpretation of the verse supports my claim. But, given the ad hoc dodge you introduce here, your claim is no longer empirically testable.

Amaleq13

That it is used "as the name" does not make it a name of God. We use the title "President" as a name for George Bush (eg Mr. President) but that doesn't turn the title into a name. The fact remains that the word "Lord" in the hymn is clearly used as a title. The hymn promises that everyone will acknowledge "Jesus Christ [is] Lord" is quite obviously using the word as a title. Everyone will acknowledge that Jesus Christ is their ruler. Your tangential argument about the use of "Lord" instead of God's name is ultimately irrelevant. The name is clearly identified in the hymn as "Jesus" and the word "Lord" is just as clearly used as a title.

If the additions change the way the word is read, your statement above is incorrect.

If the newly created collection of letters was assigned a specific meaning it certainly would constitute a word. Also, this newly created collection of letters would no longer be the original word. The original word, therefore, has been changed into a different word. Struggle all you want and continue to pretend that there exists some higher level of understanding but the fact remains that the original collection of consonants has been changed into a different word.

It is only impossible if none of Paul's letters contain the appropriate claims to refute the argument. It is not the fault of the argument if no such example exists nor does that render it unavailable to empirical consideration. In fact, if the argument were true, that is precisely what one would expect. All that would be needed to refute the argument is an example of Paul specifically referring to the Son/Christ figure at a time prior to his sacrifice/resurrection as being named "Jesus". For example, if Paul had identified the pre-existent Son as being named "Jesus" while in the heavens with God but prior to the sacrifice, we would be forced to reinterpret the hymn in a way other than the most obvious meaning.

What you are looking for is a specific example to counter the specific example given in the hymn where the name "Jesus" is clearly described as something bestowed upon Christ after the resurrection.