Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 11:36 PM

If you look at Irenaeus Book Three you will see about 16 references to the heretical interpretation of impassibility and Christ. There are two figures involved in the Passion - Jesus and Christ. The heretics say one suffered the other was impassible. Gregory Thaumaturgus says one gave impassibility to the other, covered his passion with impassibility. There is a whole mystical understanding but it seems to me to be related to the opinion of the heretics attacked by Irenaeus.

There is a mystery to the name Jesus which I don't think anyone (including myself) has solved satisfactorily. If it is a name, what does it mean? It can't mean Joshua in this case. Human names and divine names never mixed in this period. Jews only began to call themselves after angel names (Michael, Gabriel, Sariel etc) relatively recently and probably under Christian influence.

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 11:53 PM

I know when I bring up the separatist habits of Jews it gets people's backs up. Think of it like the Italian prohibition on eating certain foods together (like cheese and fish).

neilgodfrey · 07-20-2012, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Lord is not a name. It is an official title.

Right. But I am working from the premise that Earl gave: "But what if the “name” were “Lord”?" My point is that if the name is "Lord", then (contra Earl) the passage makes sense. If it isn't "Lord", then my point is still correct, but it is moot.

"He gave him the name Lord so that at the name of Robert every knee should bow" is what you said. How does that make sense? Keep in mind that you are saying Lord is a name here and not a title. Later the people confess that Robert is Lord -- but if Lord were another name then they should confess not that Robert is Lord but they should confess that Robert has been renamed Robert Lord.

stephan huller · 07-21-2012, 12:03 AM

I am going to bed but let me reiterate that the dio kai (“wherefore also”) naturally suggest that God chose to reward the man being crucified by giving him the name Jesus. The business about the image of God can be explained by the Origenists believing that Adam lost the image of God at the beginning. The sending of the image of God in the 'end times' was the restoration; the giving of the name Jesus was the reward for the crucifixion.

Steven Carr · 07-21-2012, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

If the Philippian hymn is our first record of the name Jesus for the uniquely Christian divinity then it appears as an honorific. And just as honorifics tend to do, they become used as if they are proper names of the ruler.

Really? Did Gakusei Don use the name 'Augustus' as if was the proper name of the man Octavian?

'Jesus' of course, was a name charged with symbolism for early Christians - 'She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.'

andrewcriddle · 07-21-2012, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Therefore also God highly exalted him,
and gave to him the name that is above every name.
That at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow...
And every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord

Compare with the following, replacing Jesus with "Augustus":

Quote:

Therefore the Senate highly exalted him (Octavian)
and gave to him the name that is above every name.
That at the name of Augustus, every knee should bow
And every tongue should confess that Augustus is Emperor

Lord is not a name. It is an official title. Titles are not names. Not even for Jesus. Lord is a title like Imperator/Emperor or King or Dictator.

Augustus is a neither a title nor a name, but it is closer to a name than a title -- and can be used as an identifier of a ruler or general in the same way his personal name can. (In support of this note that the alternative to the choice of Augustus as the "name" to be bestowed upon Octavian was for a time Romulus.) It is an honorific.

But what the hymn is telling us is that even Jesus is an honorific -- that is, a name not bestowed at birth but (like all honorifics) bestowed upon a ruler or general as a reward for victory or to acknowledge assumption to power (e.g. Africanus, Maccabee, Soter/Saviour, Epiphanes, Augustus).

If the Philippian hymn is our first record of the name Jesus for the uniquely Christian divinity then it appears as an honorific. And just as honorifics tend to do, they become used as if they are proper names of the ruler.

(With thanks to the arguments of Matthew Novenson who would be squirming in pain if he knew his work is being picked up to further a mythicist case.)

One issue is that "Lord" KURIOS seems to have become in Jewish Greek something like a name of God corresponding to the Hebrew name of God Yahweh. This is reflected in our standard texts of the Septuagint eg Exodus 6:3 "my name Lord", but the original Septuagint may have used a transliteration of the tetragrammaton here with KURIOS read aloud.

I.E. for Greek speaking Jews "Lord" is like "Augustus" something between a name and a title.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon · 07-21-2012, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Right. But I am working from the premise that Earl gave: "But what if the “name” were “Lord”?" My point is that if the name is "Lord", then (contra Earl) the passage makes sense. If it isn't "Lord", then my point is still correct, but it is moot.

"He gave him the name Lord so that at the name of Robert every knee should bow" is what you said. How does that make sense? Keep in mind that you are saying Lord is a name here and not a title. Later the people confess that Robert is Lord -- but if Lord were another name then they should confess not that Robert is Lord but they should confess that Robert has been renamed Robert Lord.

Except that it isn't a renaming, it is an adding to the name, such as a victory title or agnomen like "Germanicus" or even "Christ" (so it is "Jesus Christ" rather than "Jesus the Christ").

The "every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear" can be found in Isaiah 45. In that case, it is the Lord (Yahweh) to whom this is done:

Isa 45:

23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
24 Surely, shall [one] say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: [even] to him shall [men] come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.

If it is "Kurios" in the Septuagint, and Phil 2 ties into Isa 45, then it seems to support "Lord" being the name.

JonA · 07-21-2012, 03:50 AM

Historicists are often accused of being simple exegetes, yet here we have a slew of mythicists trying to logically deconstruct a string of nonsensical theological praises as if some further meaning can be derived from them.

Could the irony be more blatant?

sotto voce · 07-21-2012, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Historicists are often accused of being simple exegetes, yet here we have a slew of mythicists trying to logically deconstruct a string of nonsensical theological praises as if some further meaning can be derived from them.

Could the irony be more blatant?

Steven Carr · 07-21-2012, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One issue is that "Lord" KURIOS seems to have become in Jewish Greek something like a name of God corresponding to the Hebrew name of God Yahweh. This is reflected in our standard texts of the Septuagint eg Exodus 6:3 "my name Lord", but the original Septuagint may have used a transliteration of the tetragrammaton here with KURIOS read aloud.

I.E. for Greek speaking Jews "Lord" is like "Augustus" something between a name and a title.

Andrew Criddle

Quite right. Even 'Christ' seems in Paul to be more of a name than a job description.

07-21-2012, 03:50 AM	#38
JonA Regular Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Minnesota! Posts: 386	Where There's Smoke, There's Fire Historicists are often accused of being simple exegetes, yet here we have a slew of mythicists trying to logically deconstruct a string of nonsensical theological praises as if some further meaning can be derived from them. Could the irony be more blatant?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-20-2012, 11:36 PM	#31
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	If you look at Irenaeus Book Three you will see about 16 references to the heretical interpretation of impassibility and Christ. There are two figures involved in the Passion - Jesus and Christ. The heretics say one suffered the other was impassible. Gregory Thaumaturgus says one gave impassibility to the other, covered his passion with impassibility. There is a whole mystical understanding but it seems to me to be related to the opinion of the heretics attacked by Irenaeus. There is a mystery to the name Jesus which I don't think anyone (including myself) has solved satisfactorily. If it is a name, what does it mean? It can't mean Joshua in this case. Human names and divine names never mixed in this period. Jews only began to call themselves after angel names (Michael, Gabriel, Sariel etc) relatively recently and probably under Christian influence.

07-20-2012, 11:53 PM	#32
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I know when I bring up the separatist habits of Jews it gets people's backs up. Think of it like the Italian prohibition on eating certain foods together (like cheese and fish).

07-21-2012, 12:03 AM	#34
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I am going to bed but let me reiterate that the dio kai (“wherefore also”) naturally suggest that God chose to reward the man being crucified by giving him the name Jesus. The business about the image of God can be explained by the Origenists believing that Adam lost the image of God at the beginning. The sending of the image of God in the 'end times' was the restoration; the giving of the name Jesus was the reward for the crucifixion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.