Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 07-20-2012, 09:39 AM

I don't know how many here are following my Response to Ehrman series on the Vridar blog, but we have just posted an important installment in the series on the question of whether the earliest Christians regarded Jesus as God or a part of God.

A couple of weeks ago I enquired here if anyone could remember a past thread about the Philippians hymn. I was not able to locate it, but I did find another one from 2007 which stirred up quite a storm, involving Ben C. Smith, TedM and (of course) the indefatigable GakuseiDon. One of the questions in the debate centered on the line from the Philippians hymn about "the name above every name" and whether it referred to "Jesus" or "Lord".

I believe that in my latest consideration of the hymn, this hymn is revealed to be a true smoking gun, demonstrating a virtually incontestible case for mythicism, at least for the epistolary side of things. Perhaps it can be put to the test here, with our peerless defenders of an HJ.

Here are a couple of excerpts from

Installment #27 on Vridar (The link brings you to partway in. If you want to read from the beginning just scroll back.)

The first line, verse 5, is not part of the hymn, but by Paul, and cannot be taken as already bestowing the name "Christ Jesus" on the figure introduced in verse 6 (the translation, by the way, is the one supplied by Ehrman himself):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil.2:5-11

(Have this mind in yourselves which is also in Christ Jesus,)

[6] who although he was in the form [μορφη] of God [alt., being in very nature God (as in NIV)],

did not regard being equal with God something to be seized.

[7] But he emptied himself, taking on the form of a slave,

and coming [lit., becoming] in the likeness of humans.

[8] And being found in the appearance as a human

he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, [even the death of the cross].

[9] Therefore also God highly exalted him [literally: hyper-exalted him],

and gave to him the name that is above every name.

[10] That at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow

of things in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth.

[11] And every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord

to the glory of God the Father.

After an extensive discussion of the opening verses in regard to the meaning of μορφη and whether the word here means "image" or "nature" and whether the figure is being presented as originally divine or not (which I'll leave to you to investigate at Vridar if you want to discuss it), I discussed the latter half of the hymn:

Quote:

The interpretation of verses 9-11 has always been critical. What is the “name above every name”? The plain reading is that it is “Jesus.” The word “name” in both verses is the same: “onoma.” This descending-ascending figure, who has pointedly not been identified by any name in the hymn before, is now given a name, and at that name, “Jesus,” all in heaven, earth and Sheol bow their knee to him. With that understanding, the case for mythicism has been clinched, for it tells us that no “Jesus” lived on earth with that name before the resurrection.

But scholarship sees one way out: the “name” given to the figure in verse 9 is not “Jesus,” it is something else. And with that other name, the exalted entity who was allegedly already named Jesus receives his new homage. And what is that other “name”? There is only one candidate available. It is “Lord.” But how much sense does this make?

When is a title a name?

First of all, “Lord” is a title, not a name. It is sometimes claimed that the word “onoma” can encompass a title. But this is in the sense of a category designation, such as Ignatius saying that he is persecuted for his “name” in that he is a “Christian.” (See Bauer, def. II.) Even the common phrase “in the name of the Lord” is not making “Lord” itself a name, but refers to the act of calling upon God, referred to by one of his designations, whether Lord or Most High or Father, and so on. It is not identifying those terms as personal “names” but as titles. My father’s name was not “father.” That was a category designation and a form of address. If the hymnist wanted to identify the term given to Jesus as “Lord,” a title designation of God, he should have identified it as a title and not a name.

And what happens if the “name” given in verse 9 is not “Jesus” but some other term? It would be like saying, “He was given the name George, so that at the name of Robert every knee should bow.” There is a rather obvious non-sequitur in these verses that the hymnist should not have felt comfortable with. Is “Jesus” a name that could be called “a name above every name”? It could if it encompassed the meaning of Savior, which it does. This would make it a name greater than any other name of a divine or human entity other than God.

Another smoking gun?

But what if the “name” were “Lord”? Is that “a name above every name”? Since it is a title of God himself it certainly would be, presuming we could take “name” as encompassing a title. But the hymnist would then be creating a confusing picture, one in fact which is not just a non-sequitur but contradictory. In the usual scholarly scenario, Jesus receives obeisance from the entire universe on the basis of being given the “name above every name” in verse 9. In other words, the denizens of the universe are reacting to that name, whatever it is.

But if this “name” is “Lord” then verse 10 doesn’t fit, for there it is said that “at the name of Jesus” every knee shall bow. But it would not be the name “Jesus” which prompts the bending of the knee if it is allegedly the title “Lord.” There is a contradiction here which cannot be resolved. (The statement that “Jesus Christ is Lord” in the final verse need not reflect back on the previous verses, for it could as easily mean that the Son now given the name Jesus has become Lord, beside the Lord God himself.) We must return to seeing verse 9’s “name” as “Jesus,” which brings it into harmony with the statement of verse 10. And brings mythicism onto the gold medal podium.

So what say you, Don & Co.? I expect a detailed refutation, not some blithe dismissal. Or cute smilie.

Earl Doherty

outhouse · 07-20-2012, 09:52 AM

no one doubts mythology was built around jesus the man.

As a matter of fact the roman text we have are almost all myth.

I peronally think you are overthinking the hymn

outhouse · 07-20-2012, 10:00 AM

these are what I find important, mortal man made into a deity.

and then also turning a jewish slave into a deity

Quote:

taking on the form of a slave

Quote:

in the likeness of humans.

Quote:

And being found in the appearance as a human

Quote:

and became obedient unto death,

EarlDoherty · 07-20-2012, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

no one doubts mythology was built around jesus the man.

As a matter of fact the roman text we have are almost all myth.

I peronally think you are overthinking the hymn

And you aren't doing any thinking at all. You call this a refutation?

Earl Doherty

sotto voce · 07-20-2012, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

the Son now given the name Jesus has become Lord, beside the Lord God himself

For a trinitarian view, no amount of assistance rendered can provide a solution.

Kosh · 07-20-2012, 01:07 PM

I'm a little confused at this Earl.

So, isn't it true that "Jesus" is simply our translated name (as a result of a problem between Greek/Latin etc?

And wouldn't that actual name listed have meant to be Yeshua (Joshua)?

And isn't that known to have been a fairly common name?

Why would they think that God named this mythical person a common name?

Is your assertion that there was no "Joshua" before that, or simply that there was no physical manifestation of this particular Joshua person?

:huh:

outhouse · 07-20-2012, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

no one doubts mythology was built around jesus the man.

As a matter of fact the roman text we have are almost all myth.

I peronally think you are overthinking the hymn

And you aren't doing any thinking at all. You call this a refutation?

Earl Doherty

I am thinking, however i'm not requiring the use of imagination.

I would love to see where your coming from, I cant tell why your using pauls perception when trying to describe what a wide and different movement that was going in many directions, for how divine they thought jesus to be.

Pauls jesus was very divine and almost all mythology

JonA · 07-20-2012, 02:36 PM

You're overanalyzing this, Earl.

GakuseiDon · 07-20-2012, 03:07 PM

Here is the Phil 2 passage (slightly edited):

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":

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

Does that work? The knees bow at the name of Augustus, because he has been declared "Caesar". Similarly, the knees bow at the name of Jesus, because he was been declared "Lord".

I agree with the others, Earl. You're over-analyzing this.

aa5874 · 07-20-2012, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Here is the Phil 2 passage (slightly edited):

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":

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

Does that work? The knees bow at the name of Augustus, because he has been declared "Caesar". Similarly, the knees bow at the name of Jesus, because he was been declared "Lord".

I agree with the others, Earl. You're over-analyzing this.

Now, let us Replace Augustus with Jupiter.

Therefore the Senate highly exalted him (Jupiter)
and gave to him the name "Lord".
That at the name of Jupiter, every knee should bow
And every tongue should confess that Jupiter is Lord

07-20-2012, 03:07 PM	#9
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Here is the Phil 2 passage (slightly edited): 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": Therefore the Senate highly exalted him (Augustus) and gave to him the name "Caesar". That at the name of Augustus, every knee should bow And every tongue should confess that Augustus is Caesar Does that work? The knees bow at the name of Augustus, because he has been declared "Caesar". Similarly, the knees bow at the name of Jesus, because he was been declared "Lord". I agree with the others, Earl. You're over-analyzing this.

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

07-20-2012, 09:52 AM	#2
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	no one doubts mythology was built around jesus the man. As a matter of fact the roman text we have are almost all myth. I peronally think you are overthinking the hymn

07-20-2012, 01:07 PM	#6
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	I'm a little confused at this Earl. So, isn't it true that "Jesus" is simply our translated name (as a result of a problem between Greek/Latin etc? And wouldn't that actual name listed have meant to be Yeshua (Joshua)? And isn't that known to have been a fairly common name? Why would they think that God named this mythical person a common name? Is your assertion that there was no "Joshua" before that, or simply that there was no physical manifestation of this particular Joshua person? :huh:

07-20-2012, 02:36 PM	#8
JonA Regular Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Minnesota! Posts: 386	You're overanalyzing this, Earl.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.