Ben C Smith

The passages that have been dubbed smoking guns for the mythicist case usually fail to impress. Even a first reading of most of these passages reveals the flaw in the thinking. However, Philippians 2.9-11 is perhaps a different matter. A first reading makes it seem that the very name of Jesus itself was not attached to the figure in this so-called Christ hymn until after his death and exaltation:

Therefore also God exalted him, and granted him the name which is over every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those who are heavenly and those who are on earth and those who are under the ground, and [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, unto the glory of God the father.

Does this mean that a figure called Jesus was given the title Lord at the exaltation? Or does it mean that a figure, whose original name is not mentioned, was given the name Jesus at the exaltation?

I admit that at very first blush the latter makes more sense of the passage as it stands. Or perhaps there is a third interpretation. I am interested in reactions to this passage, both mythicist and historicist.

(For the record, I think it was Paul-Louis Couchoud who first pointed this matter out.)

Ben.

Jehanne

Remember Johnnie Cochran's famous (or infamous) statement, "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit."? Here's the strongest evidence for the mythicist case:

If Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, he and Saint Paul were contemporaries, that is, they lived during the same time period.

If this is true, why does Paul, in the 80,000 or so words that have been ascribed as being authentically written by him, never mention any concrete, historical facts about Jesus -- his birthplace, his parents, where he lived, his "miracles," his teachings, where he died, etc, etc.?

gstafleu

Here is the whole hymn, as presented by the NIV:
The layout of the NIV makes it look as if the hymn starts at 2:5. If this is not the case, it is not clear who the "Who" in 2.6 originally was, although the author of 2 Phil clearly assumes CJ.

It then gets interesting, as the reader's "attitude" has to be that of this CJ, who is "in very nature God." There is a hint (depending on what "attitude" means) of immanence here.

Next we move from this hint of immanence to something that sounds outright docetic, to wit 2:7-8, "And being found in appearance as a man" no less.

Then we move on to the piece that captured your interest. I would say that the "him" in 2:9 is the "Who" of 2:6 (I'm not sure who else it could be), who is CJ, either according to the hymn or at least according to the author of 2 Phil. This "him" is then exalted and given a fancy title, to wit "Lord," which may just mean that he is the boss of you. But I would think that the "him" is CJ, as argued above.

As such this certainly fits in with the mythicist position, but why would it be more or less smoking than other things? It does show, though, that the tradition here may not have been the orthodox one, and the multi-threaded beginnings of Christianity is part of (some) mythicist positions.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

Because, as I am saying, it seems, at least at first blush, less natural to assume that the bestowed name is Lord than to assume that the bestowed name is Jesus.

If this figure who died and was exalted did not have the name of Jesus until after his death, what does that do to the historicist position? That is my question, more or less.

You may reply that the who and the him refer back to Christ Jesus in verse 5, implying that he was already Christ and Jesus before all this happened; and that may be the case in the epistle to the Philippians. But the issue is that this is widely regarded as a separate hymn that Paul has incorporated into the epistle. If so, then verse 5, as you yourself acknowledge, is of little help in determining the original referent. Paul may have omitted the original referent in order to make the hymn fit his argument.

If the hymn means that the name Jesus was granted this figure only at his exaltation, and if Paul has omitted the original referent, then that is one of the things I would like to hear about from mythicists. What was the original referent? You are correct, I think, that the hymn can scarcely have started out with the relative pronoun who. Surely it identified the figure somehow. If not Jesus (because that name was bestowed only later), then what?

Thanks.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

If that is indeed the strongest evidence for the mythicist case, no wonder I am not a mythicist.

I am exploring a potential smoking gun on this thread, not yet another argument from silence.

Ben.

Jehanne

It's why I am a mythicist. However, even if Jesus existed as a historical person, he was just another first-century loon. But, to comment on your OP, who knows (or cares) what Paul was thinking?? The poetic, ambiguous nature of his statements are an indication, IMHO, that he wasn't sure about who (or what) he was talking about, which means that it is likely that he was not referring to any historical personage to begin with.

Jayrok

I'm still undecided on the MJ vs HJ issue, but IMO this passage reads to say that God made him Lord over all. After reading the entire hymn, as Gerard posted, Jesus didn't consider himself equal with God and that such a notion could not be grasped by anyone. So he considered himself a servant in human likeness.

Therefore God exalted him and gave him the name above all... Lord

Paul also taught Jesus was there at creation and before time, I thought God named him Jesus way back then before creation. Or he thought of him as "wisdom". A case maybe can be made either way, but I don't see how it would be a smoking gun for mythicism since it's possible, if not likely, that the name above all names is Lord.

Minimalist

Oh, Paul was SURE. He was talking about a Jewish version of Mithras or Krishna, Tammuz, etc. He just changed the names and sold the same snake oil that was being peddled all over the Empire.

Those historical details were invented after Paul's death...and also Philo's.

gstafleu

I see, so let's rewrite the hymn a bit for clarity:
So X is, at the beginning of the hymn, an unnamed entity. At the end of the hymn he has three names: Jesus, Christ and Lord. The question now is if X is assumed to have any of these names before the exaltation, correct?

Would you agree that the crucial verse here is 10.a? The "that" here is hina, which according to Lidell means "in order that." So X gets a special name, in order that when hearing the name Jesus everyone will be impressed. I must confess that I first read this as "Jesus" already existing, and something is added to it to make it more impressive. What is added? Could be "Christos," "Lord" or something unmentioned.

But I must also admit that the whole of "Jesus Christ" could be the name given. After all that could be read as God saying "You, X, are now my anointed saviour." In fact, if we take the text (of the hymn) as is and don't read anything else into it, that might well be the main possibility.

However, "Jesus" is mentioned as a more or less stand-alone entity in 10.a. I think the possibility remains open that X was already called Jesus, that the exaltation bestowed the status of anointedness onto him, which status made him Lord over the mere mortals, and possibly the unanointed angels as well. This possibility fits best with how the hymn is used. In Modern terms we would put it as:
All of this is very mythicistey, of course.

Gerard Stafleu

Amaleq13

I'm not sure how that meaning is obtained from harpagmos as it is my understanding it means "robbery" (ie "...who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God,..."(YLT).

That reading suggests Jesus didn't think he was robbing God of anything by being in the form of God which certainly doesn't suggest he thought it was something that couldn't be grasped.

IOW, Jesus was in the form of and equal to God but, though he didn't consider that wrong, "emptied himself" and took on the form of a servant.