Inquiry regarding the Christ hymn of Philippians 2.6-11.

[Secret Alias]

The thing that Isa 45:23 understands is making everyone bow down to is not the angel - the Logos - but God Almighty. Even if there was an angel named 'Jesus' - something I would never acknowledge otherwise - this isn't the thing at issue. It is the Father, the recognition of the Almighty God not his servant.

[Secret Alias]

The idea that Wisdom proceeds from the mouth of God may be suggested by Prov. 2:6 ("For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding"). This motif lays the foundation for the identification of Wisdom with the word of God, which also proceeds from the mouth (cf. Isa. 45:23; 48:3; 25: 1 1 ). The Greek word logos, however, had far-reaching connotations in Greek, especially Stoic, philosophy, where it referred to the rational spirit that pervades the universe. The fusion with Greek philosophical ideas becomes a major issue in the Wisdom of Solomon (cf. Wis. 9:2) and in the Jewish philosopher Philo.30 The fusion of the Jewish wisdom tradition and Greek philosophy on this point is essential background to the use of the Logos/Word in John 1:1. [Collins Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age p. 50]

[Secret Alias]

Isa 45:23 and content for 2:10–11: every knee shall bow . . . and every language confess . . . to the glory of God. Inserted in 10c is a contemporary commonplace, those in the heavens, on earth, and in the world below; in 11b, a Christian creedal slogan (see 2, below). On the LXX or “Old Greek” text of 45:23, see Notes on 10abc. The Heb. MT is about Yahweh's Victory through Israel” (AB 20:80–84); the LXX, more about God's saving, justifying righteousness, though some are put to shame. Oakes 2001:133–37 sees LXX rewritten in 2:10–11 to present the “triumph of God, in Christ, over the Roman empire.” Paul used Isa 45:23 also at Rom 14:11 to warn that “we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.” At Rom 14:11 the word order is the same as Phil 2:11 (not the LXX) + to theo from the LXX. The vb. means “confess” sins. If Phil 2:10–11 with its christological sense precedes Rom, 14:11 may be retrogressive or, better, reflect flexibility in using the OT. The Philippians probably heard Paul use Isa. 45:23 in a doxological sense or in Hellenistic-Christian Christology (Koch 1980). Wengst 1972:134–35, used at 2:10–11 to show universal homage. [Reumanns Philippians a New Translation p. 360]

[Peter Kirby]

I am on record (both here recently and years ago on the FRDB) as being of the opinion that the most natural referent for the name above all names that was bestowed upon Jesus Christ in the Christ hymn is Jesus itself, since in the very next line it is the name of Jesus at which every knee shall bow. (Indeed, I remember wondering in my late teens about this very issue; at that point I had not yet started to question the very existence of Jesus, so it was simply an anomaly I assumed someone else had the answer to, and I would get it eventually. As another issue from this same Christ hymn, I also wondered why Jesus took the form of a servant, which seemed pretty specific and did not exactly match his apparent status as a free man in the gospels.)

Some discussion on a couple of other threads, though, has me thinking about the putative etymology of Jesus: Yehoshua (presumably Yahweh saves) > Yeshua (shortened form) > Jesus (English rendition of the Greek translation). It appears that Philo, for one, was aware of this etymology, if we take Lord as a translational stand-in for the sacred name, as it so often is.

So what if the author of the Christ hymn was aware of it, as well, and is simply making a link between the divine name and the name of Jesus? In this case, the sense would be (Philippians 2.9-10:

For this reason also God highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name [= Yahweh], so that at the name of Jesus [= Yahweh saves] every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth....

The author nowhere specifically states, after all, that the name above all names is Jesus. What if it is Yahweh, and the connection is that Jesus being awarded the sacred name actually endows his already theophoric name with dominical and salvific power?

Does this make any sense at all? Does it in any way compete with the prima facie reading that Jesus is the name? Or is it out there?

Ben.

In its favor, this is the way in which another name (only occasionally applied) was interpreted by Origen--Immanuel, 'God With Us'. ... Minus the bit about the name(s) of God being the name above every name. ... I.e., it was read by its parts and their meaning.

But that we may not seem, because of a Hebrew word, to endeavour to persuade those who are unable to determine whether they ought to believe it or not, that the prophet spoke of this man being born of a virgin, because at his birth these words, God with us, were uttered, let us make good our point from the words themselves. The Lord is related to have spoken to Ahaz thus: Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God, either in the depth or height above; and afterwards the sign is given, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son. What kind of sign, then, would that have been— a young woman who was not a virgin giving birth to a child? And which of the two is the more appropriate as the mother of Immanuel (i.e., God with us)—whether a woman who has had intercourse with a man, and who has conceived after the manner of women, or one who is still a pure and holy virgin? Surely it is appropriate only to the latter to produce a being at whose birth it is said, God with us. And should he be so captious as to say that it is to Ahaz that the command is addressed, Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord your God, we shall ask in return, who in the times of Ahaz bore a son at whose birth the expression is made use of, Immanuel, i.e., God with us? And if no one can be found, then manifestly what was said to Ahaz was said to the house of David, because it is written that the Saviour was born of the house of David according to the flesh; and this sign is said to be in the depth or in the height, since He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things. And these arguments I employ as against a Jew who believes in prophecy. Let Celsus now tell me, or any of those who think with him, with what meaning the prophet utters either these statements about the future, or the others which are contained in the prophecies? Is it with any foresight of the future or not? If with a foresight of the future, then the prophets were divinely inspired; if with no foresight of the future, let him explain the meaning of one who speaks thus boldly regarding the future, and who is an object of admiration among the Jews because of his prophetic powers.

Arguably, something similar is already implied by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, when he says--

Matthew 1:21
"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

Where the name given is broken down into a component of its meaning ('save', from 'yahweh saves').

While neither are actually 'complete-in-all-respects parallels', they might suggest the general plausibility of the suggestion.

[Secret Alias]

I was flipping through Jastrow hoping to be put to sleep when I noticed this under the entry for 'anthropeus' (= corruption Greek 'anthropos')

m. anthropeus (man), an assumed form for ἄνθρωπος, for the purpose of deriving another assumed form(אנתרופיא) anthropeia (woman). Gen.B.s. 18; s. 31 did you ever hear people say gynios and gyneia (from γυνή, woman), or anthropeus, anthropeia, gabra (man) gabratha (woman)? but you do say (in Hebrew) ish and ish-sha, both of the same root (as an evidence of the primitiveness of the Hebrew language)

In German:

Hast du jemals sagen hören: gini, ginja [gynios, gyneia] (itta, itteta, so ist die Lesart des 'Aruch im Eintrag anteropi), anteropi, anteropija [anthropeus, anthropeia], gabra, gabrata} Doch [nur] isch und ischa, denn hier klingt das eine wie das andere Wort. Soweit ihre Worte. Zwar verwirft der Weise, unser Lehrer R. Isaak Arama diesen ihren Beweis in seinem Buch 'Akedat Jizchak, Kapitel , kurz vor dem , Kapitel über das Beisammensein', wenn er sagt ...

A fuller English translation:

For this shall be called ishah (woman), for from ish (man) was this taken" (Gen. 2:23)--we learn from this that the Torah was given in the Holy Tongue. Rabbi Pinchas and Rabbi Hilkiya said in the name of Rabbi Simon: Just as the Torah was given in the Holy Tongue so was the world created with the Holy Tongue. Did you ever hear the forms gyne and gyneya, ita and itata, anthropos and anthropaia, gavra and gavrata? But ish and ishah [Hebrew for "man" and "woman," ah being the feminine ending], which proves that the language of creation was Hebrew

This seems to correspond to the 'name above all names' does it not? Better than 'Joshua' which was not a name above all names. Genesis Rabbah says the fact Hebrew uses the most mystical, truest terminology for man = ish = it is a heavenly language. Ish is the name above all other names.

[Peter Kirby]

I was flipping through Jastrow hoping to be put to sleep when I noticed this under the entry for 'anthropeus' (= corruption Greek 'anthropos')

m. anthropeus (man), an assumed form for ἄνθρωπος, for the purpose of deriving another assumed form(אנתרופיא) anthropeia (woman). Gen.B.s. 18; s. 31 did you ever hear people say gynios and gyneia (from γυνή, woman), or anthropeus, anthropeia, gabra (man) gabratha (woman)? but you do say (in Hebrew) ish and ish-sha, both of the same root (as an evidence of the primitiveness of the Hebrew language)

In German:

Hast du jemals sagen hören: gini, ginja [gynios, gyneia] (itta, itteta, so ist die Lesart des 'Aruch im Eintrag anteropi), anteropi, anteropija [anthropeus, anthropeia], gabra, gabrata} Doch [nur] isch und ischa, denn hier klingt das eine wie das andere Wort. Soweit ihre Worte. Zwar verwirft der Weise, unser Lehrer R. Isaak Arama diesen ihren Beweis in seinem Buch 'Akedat Jizchak, Kapitel , kurz vor dem , Kapitel über das Beisammensein', wenn er sagt ...

A fuller English translation:

For this shall be called ishah (woman), for from ish (man) was this taken" (Gen. 2:23)--we learn from this that the Torah was given in the Holy Tongue. Rabbi Pinchas and Rabbi Hilkiya said in the name of Rabbi Simon: Just as the Torah was given in the Holy Tongue so was the world created with the Holy Tongue. Did you ever hear the forms gyne and gyneya, ita and itata, anthropos and anthropaia, gavra and gavrata? But ish and ishah [Hebrew for "man" and "woman," ah being the feminine ending], which proves that the language of creation was Hebrew

This seems to correspond to the 'name above all names' does it not? Better than 'Joshua' which was not a name above all names. Genesis Rabbah says the fact Hebrew uses the most mystical, truest terminology for man = ish = it is a heavenly language. Ish is the name above all other names.

Your quote is in no way related to your comments...

The quote 'proves' that the language of creation was Hebrew, not Greek (anthropos, gyne) or Aramaic (gabra-man).

The quote does not seem to say anything about Ish as a divine name or 'name above all names' ...... Or even that it is a name at all.

If you see more than that, you will have to explain.

[Tenorikuma]

By Rabbi Simon's logic, English is a candidate for the language of creation.

[Stephan Huller]

Well of course its a name - just as all things called "horse" are named horse, all things named "man" have the name man. Its very Platonic. Its above all particular names for the thing named man because it was the name God gave to all men. Schwartz notes that DSS seem to have a version of Genesis where the first man (the man of Gen 1) was called ish. There are some particular men called "Johnny" and others called "Bobby" but Ish is the name of all particular men. It alone is used to prove that Hebrew isn't a particular language of a particular people but the language of all languages, where the name of all names derives. Got to go back to sleep

[Stephan Huller]

Since Peter didn't understand that "Ish" was a name at all (and because it demonstrates that Jewish mystical ideas were transferred to Alexandrian Christianity:

Eusebius Preparation for the Gospel Book 11

CHAPTER VI

LONG before the name of philosophy was known to the Greeks, Moses had been the first throughout all his writing to treat in numberless instances of the giving of names, and sometimes had arranged the names of all things about him in exact accordance with their nature, and at other times referred to God the decision of the new name given to devout men, and had taught that names are given to things by nature and not conventionally; Plato in following him assents to the same opinions, and does not omit to mention Barbarians, and affirm that this custom is maintained among them, hinting probably at the Hebrews, since it is not easy to observe a theory of this kind among other Barbarians.

He says, at all events, in the Cratylus:

[PLATO] 'The name of anything is not whatever men agree to call it, pronouncing over it some small portion of their own language, but there is a kind of natural correctness in names, the same for all both Greeks and Barbarians.' 4

And then farther on he says:

'So then as long as the legislator, whether here or among the Barbarians, assigns to each thing the form of name that properly belongs to it, whatever syllables he may use, you will not deem him to be a worse legislator, whether in this country or anywhere else.' 5

Then again after asserting that the man who understands the correctness of names is a dialectician and a legislator, he next speaks thus: 6

'A carpenter's work then is to make a rudder under the superintendence of a pilot, if the rudder is to be a good one.

'Evidently.

'And a legislator's work, as it seems, is to give a name, having a dialectician to direct him, if the name is to be rightly given.

'That is true.

'The giving of names then, Hermogenes, is likely to be no light matter, as you suppose, nor a work for light persons, nor for chance comers: and Cratylus speaks truly, when he says that things have their names by nature, and that not every one is an artist in names, but only that man who looking to the name which by nature belongs to each thing is able to impose its form upon both the letters and the syllables.'

After these statements, and many more, he again brings up the mention of the Barbarians, and then expressly acknowledges that most of the names have come to the Greeks from the Barbarians, saying in exact words: 7

'I have an idea that the Greeks, and especially those who live under the Barbarians, have taken many names from them.

'Well, what then?

'If any one should try to find how these names are fitly given according to the Greek language, and not according to that language from which each name happens to be derived, you know that he would be in difficulty.

'Naturally.'

So says Plato. He is anticipated, however, by Moses; for hear what he says, as being a wise legislator and withal a dialectician. 'And out of the ground God formed all the beasts of the field and all the fowls of the heaven, and brought them to Adam, to see what he would call them. And whatsoever Adam called a living being, that was the name thereof.' 8

For by saying 'that was the name thereof does he not show that the appellations were given in accordance with nature? For the name just now given, he says, was long before contained in the nature, and that in each of the things named there existed from the beginning this name which the said man inspired by a superior power has given it.

Moreover the very name Adam, being originally a Hebrew noun, would become with Moses an appellation of the earth-born man, because among the Hebrews the earth is called Adam, wherefore also the first man made out of the earth is with true etymology called by Moses Adam.

But the name may also have another meaning, being otherwise taken for 'red,' and representing the natural colour of the body. However, by the appellation 'Adam' he signified the earthlike, and earthly, and earthborn, or the man of body and of flesh.

But the Hebrews also call man otherwise, giving him the name 'Enos,' 9 which they say is the rational man within us, different in nature from the earthlike 'Adam.' Enos also has a meaning of its own, being in the Greek language interpreted 'forgetful.'

And such the rational part within us is by nature apt to be, on account of its combination with the mortal and irrational part. For the one being altogether pure, and incorporeal, and divine, and rational, comprehends not only the memory of the things that are past, but also the knowledge of the things that are to come, through the supreme excellence of its vision. While the other close-packed in flesh, pierced through with bones and nerves, and laden with the great and heavy burden of the body, was seen by the Hebrew Scripture to be full of forgetfulness and ignorance, and called by an apt designation 'Enos,' which means 'the forgetful.'

It is written at least in a certain Prophet 'What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? Or the son of man, that Thou visitest him?' 10 For which the Hebrew, in the first naming of 'man,' contains the word 'Enos': as if he said more plainly, What is this forgetful one, that Thou, O God, rememberest him, forgetful though he is? And the other clause, 'Or the son of man that Thou visitest him? is read among the Hebrews, 'Or the son of Adam': so that the same man is both Adam and Enos; the fleshly nature being represented by Adam, and the rational by Enos.

In this way do the Hebrew oracles distinguish the etymology of the two words. But Plato asserts that man is called ἄνθρωπος in the Greek language from looking upward, saying:

'But man no sooner sees, that is the meaning ofὄπωπε, than he both looks up (ἀναθρεῖ), and considers that which he has seen, that he may be one who looks up at what he sees (ἀναθρῶν ἂ ὄπωπε).' 11

Again the Hebrews call the man 'Ish' (Εἷς): and the name is derived by them from Ἔς, by which they signify fire, that the man may be so named because of the hot and fiery temper of the masculine nature.

But the woman, since she is said to have been taken out of man, also shares the name in common with the man: for the woman is called among them 'Issha,' as the man is 'Ish.' But Plato says that the man (ἀνήρ) is so named because of the upward flux (τὴν ἄνω ῥοήν); and he adds----

'And γυνή (woman) seems to me to be the same asγονή (birth).' 12

Again Moses calls the heaven in the Hebrew tonguethe firmament etymologically, because the first thing after the incorporeal and intellectual essence is thefirm and sensible body of this world. But Plato says that the name οὐρανός is rightly given to the heaven, because it makes us look upward (ὁραν ἄνω). 13

Again the Hebrews say that the highest and proper name of God may not be spoken or uttered, nor even conceived in the imagination of the mind: but this actual name by which they speak of God, they call Elohim, from El, as it seems: and this they interpret as 'strength,' and 'power'; so that among them the name of God has been derived by reasoning from His power and strength, by which He is conceived as Allpowerful and Almighty, as having established all things. But Plato says that the names θεός and θεοί(god and gods) were given because the luminaries in heaven are always running (θέειν). 14

Of some such kind, to speak generally, are the investigations of the Hebrews and those of Plato on the correctness of names. The names also among men, Plato says, have been given with some meaning, and he tries to render the reason of them: for he says that Hector somehow or other is named from having and ruling (ἔχειν καὶ κρατεῖν) because he was king of the Trojans;15 and Agamemnon because he was very persistent (ἄγαν μένειν), and persevered vigorously and constantly in his determinations about the Trojans;16 Orestes because of the mountainous (ὀρεινόν) and fierce and savage quality of his disposition;17 and Atreus, because of his having been a mischievous (ἀτηρόν) sort of person in character;18 and Pelops as one who saw nothing at a distance, but only the things that were close and near (πέλας).19 Tantalus, he says, means a most miserable man (ταλάντατον)because of the misfortunes which beset him.20

These examples and countless others such as these you will find stated by Plato, in endeavouring to teach that the first men had their names given to them by nature and not by convention.

[Stephan Huller]

So now that that is established what name could be higher than Ish? God doesn't have a name, right? That's because all named things are created and God is uncreated. So what are you left with? "Chicken"? Ut's unlikely that Paul was referring to poultry. I know its unusual for people who haven't been exposed to Jewish (and now Christian) mystical writings to think in terms of "naming" as creation and a name above all names but Philo says the universe is a man. The name above all names is Ish.