Vorkosigan

Irrelevant. We have the hymn in its Greek form, and in Greek, the phrase in question clearly interrupts the flow of the original, at least according to the majority of exegetes of all doctrinal stripes.

Verse 9 looks like it is leading to 10. It is true that 11 follows from 10, but it looks to me like that writer is now making a conclusion that follows logically from previous information. Having received the name-title 'Jesus' = savior, it looks like in 11 the writer means that Jesus will take the next step and one day be lord of the earth. In other words, you, Ichabod, read 'every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is "Lord"' and I, Vorkosigan, read 'every tongue will confess that"Jesus Christ is Lord"' according to our respective presuppositions.

Vorkosigan

ichabod crane

If verses 10 and 11 allude to Isaiah 45:23, which they certainly do, then how can you say that verse 11 is a "conclusion"? It completes the allusion, half of which is in verse 10 and the other half in verse 11. The climax is clearly the declaration that Jesus Christ is Lord, which the doxology that follows shows also. "Jesus Christ is Lord" is not a name. "Lord", however, especially in the context of the Septuagint, is a name.

Vorkosigan

The allusion provides the OT grounding for the author's point, but does not control it. Poets control allusions; allusions never control poets. The author's construction has a series of ever-more building steps:

1. Jesus existed in the form of God, which I take to be a nebulous pre-existing state.

2. Jesus is made into a slave or servant of the likeness of men.

3. Jesus is made into the fashion of a man, and dies.

4 God exalts him, bestowing a name.

5. All knees shall bow to that name, Jesus.

6. saying Jesus Christ is Lord!

There is a clear progression here from nebulous non-existence to the highest point of creation; the hymn presents a nicely circular structure in which the last line is neatly ties up the very first, which is not really present in the Isaiah allusion. Thus, the writer shows off his erudition, citing the OT, but not following it slavishly. Since the last line is implied in the progression from spirit-existence to earth-God, it seems unlikely that you can really rely on the Isaiah reference to understand the hymn here. The whole point of an allusion is that it enables the words to ramify and spark associations in the reader's mind, not to signal to the reader that the writer is doing (Isaiah) with the serial numbers filed off.

Thus, looking at the structure of the hymn as a whole, verse 10 follows verse 9, while leading in turn to verse 11. 9 and 10 do not set up 11 together, 9 sets up 10, and then 10 sets up 11. That is the way the hymn is structured. So the proper reading to me seems to me that the name bestowed is in fact, "Jesus", a name-title as much as "Lord."

The hymn is strongly docetic(??), with its references to "fashion" and "likeness" of a man. It then follows naturally that Jesus, a name-title, could be bestowed on the insignificant flesh that contains the spirit of God.

Price did not really put a whole lot of weight on this, simply pointing out that it is suggestive rather than conclusive.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth"

It is your reading that seems to avoid the actual text. The name is clearly specified within the same sentence. The next sentence goes on to add that Jesus Christ will also be called "Lord" by everyone.

"Lord" is not a name, it is a title. "Jesus" is a name and the significance of its literal meaning combined with the actions that Christ is described taking clearly supports the plain reading of the text offered by Doherty and Price.

God's Son, the Christ, was incarnated and sacrificed. Upon being raised, Christ was given the name "God's Salvation".

GakuseiDon

Ichabod, you'll find that Doherty uses quite a few 'fortunate translations' (as I call them). Bernand Muller has some good webpages showing this. Here is his conclusion: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/djp2.html
Seriously, to put it into perspective: it is one extreme of the bell curve. On the other extreme are the creationists and inerrantists.

Vorkosigan

As soon as any NT scholar is able to demonstrate a reliable methodology for determining truth and fiction in the gospels, let us know, will you?

The reality is that mythicists are socially radical, but methodologically conservative, while historicists are socially conservative but methodologically radical, for they, like creationists, let faith commitments determine their position on history.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

Are you serious? Do you really put people like Acharya in that group? How about Kersey Graves?

It comes down to the evidence. Doherty heaps speculation upon speculation. Mythicists, like inerrantists, have reversed the burden of proof - Doherty's speculations have to be proved wrong, he doesn't have to be proved right.

Vorkosigan

Compared to what? The thousands of apologetic drones graduating with advanced degrees from what are essentially religious propaganda institutions? Don't make me laugh. Acharya S believes in UFOs. There are thousands of people with PhDs in theology -- the study of fantasy, Don -- who believe in a Triune God who appeared as his own son. That's a lot more fruitcake than UFOs, Don. At the moment, however, it is socially acceptable to believe in completely loony-tunes ideas like God died and then rose, which is impossible, but unacceptable to believe in UFOs (which are at least physically possible). Archaya is not more far out than Bruce Metzger, who believes that God played a role in determining which chapters got in a particular book, or the Pope, who thinks God guides his decisions. It's just that the beliefs of Metzger and the Pope are socially acceptable, even though they are impossible.

This is different from NT scholars how? Take a gander at any mainstream text on the HJ. It's nothing but page after page of speculation, unsupported claims, and faulty logic. There's simply no way it can be anything else, because nobody, including the mythicists, has any way to pull out the historical details from the surrounding fictions. It doesn't exist. Therefore, the whole field is chock full of nonsense speculation.

Mythicists and NT scholars are in exactly the same position: they don't have the methodology and evidence to support their position. The only difference is they don't have the luxury of being able to bludgeon their opponents with the club of being "mainstream."

Vorkosigan

ichabod crane

I beg to differ. In the Septuagint it clearly functions as the name of God. For example, here is Exodus 6:3 as it reads in the Septuagint:

"I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name 'Lord' I did not make myself known to them"

It reads in the Greek, "kai to onoma mou kurios ouk edelosa autois", which translates as "but by my name 'Lord' I did not manifest myself to them". Note that kurios lacks the definite article. It is just "Lord", not "the Lord".

Every time the Hebrew uses the name of God (Yahweh), the Septuagint uses kurios, "Lord".

With that I agree.

I stand by my interpretation as the clear meaning of the text. The phrase "to the glory of God the father" shows that it is the declaration that Jesus is Lord, not that his name is Jesus, which connects with the statement that "God has highly exalted him" in verse 9. I've already made relevant points which I think stand, but I'll make one more. Leaving aside the hymn here in question, do you think that Paul thinks that the name Jesus was given to the being in question only on his resurrection? If not, why would he put in a hymn which had a meaning contrary to what he himself believed, if that is the "obvious" meaning.

Wow, Vorkosigan, it sounds like you're a fundamentalist yourself. An atheistic fundamentalist. Not a lot of argument here, but plenty of assertions. I'm studying for an advanced degree in theology, I don't believe in the Trinity but no doubt I'm still a fruitcake as far as you're concerned. I do also have a Ph.D. in Medicine from the University of Sydney, though, and 20 published papers in science, so I'm reasonably familiar with academic standards. The standards at good theological institutions are *higher* then at secular universities in my opinion. But, hey, I'm just a fruitcake!

Vorkosigan

No problem then. Please show that it is less fruitcake to believe in something impossible (resurrection) than something possible (alien visitations).

Who said anything about "good" theological institutions?

You don't believe in the Trinity. And this makes you a fruitcake because....?

Vorkosigan