Philippians 2:6-11

[rgprice]

Philippians 2:6-11 appears to be quoting something. This is generally considered a quotation of a hymn.

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

The passage of course looks quite Catholic in nature. Is this considered an interpolation? How does the Greek indicate that this is a quote? Where might this hymn come from if it were actually authentically from prior to 70 CE?

[davidmartin]

i think this question is dominated by the profound difference when compared with the Jesus of the gospels
these are two antithetical traditions that only have the loosest commonality
that the Philippians hymn emerged in a setting remote from the historical origins of the movement is certain, unless the gospels are contrived/later works. the hymn is better understood in the context of Hellenistic mystery religion where some anonymous divinity does something amazing who has no life or backstory, and if they have one then the hymn deigns to sum up the entire story in one mystical act that is all important
The Gospels are in effect saying "that hymn is false" here is the real story
So the hymn is a later invention cast over the top of something that came before it, and almost unrecognizable from it's origins. To put it another way, this is Hellenistic religion, like Attis or Mithras... it's not an interpolation it's a Hellenistic derivative that petered out (badaboom) rather quickly

[Bernard Muller]

The hymn was most likely composed by the author of the 'Hebrews' epistle and then incorporated in "Philippians" by Paul himself.
My argument about the authorship of 'Hebrews' & the 'Philippians' hymn and the influence of that author on Paul are here:
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html
and http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Stuart]

"used to his own advantage" is probably better translated "being anything worthy of accomplishment/praise"

It is the motive to take the likeness of human.

The Hymn could just as easily be Gnostic. The Cosmic Christ, of his own volition took the form in the likeness of a man, and men are slaves to the Demiurge, and their earthly desires.

In short it, it's Catholic-ness comes down to your preconditioned interpretation. This is actually an important point. Most verses did not need to undergo change between sectarian views, be they Gnostic like or Catholic like, as there is enough ambiguity to fill in the doctrine of your sect within the confines of the text as it stands. (Quite frankly this tells me both systems are largely later derivatives, since they can use the same text, each claiming the other is an invention, a bastard innovation.)

[GakuseiDon]

Where might this hymn come from if it were actually authentically from prior to 70 CE?

Might it have come from Isaiah 53? 1 Clement writes something similar in Chap 16, and cites Isaiah 53 as its source:

For Christ is of those who are humble-minded, and not of those who exalt themselves over His flock. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had declared regarding Him. For He says, "Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have declared [our message] in His presence: He is, as it were, a child, and like a root in thirsty ground; He has no form nor glory, yea, we saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness; but His form was without eminence, yea, deficient in comparison with the [ordinary] form of men. He is a man exposed to stripes and suffering, and acquainted with the endurance of grief: for His countenance was turned away; He was despised, and not esteemed.

[Ben C. Smith]

How does the Greek indicate that this is a quote? Where might this hymn come from if it were actually authentically from prior to 70 CE?

The Greek does not indicate it as a quote in any explicit way; it is just that the tenor of the writing changes all of a sudden, and the line length (as marked by the finite verbs) becomes oddly consistent.

It is easy to see the hymn as (A) a precomposed piece which Paul has employed to make his point, (B) a piece composed by Paul for this epistle and designed to make his point, or (C) a later interpolation, either of a precomposed piece or of a piece composed for the purpose of the interpolation. The only option which seems genuinely excluded would be that the hymn is (D) just Paul writing as usual.

I am leaning at the moment toward regarding the hymn as an interpolation, but my reasoning is subtle and "best fit" in nature, with lots of room for arguments to the contrary (those arguments being, I have noticed, just as subtle and "best fit" in their own way as mine are). Nobody holds an ace in this case.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

How does the Greek indicate that this is a quote? Where might this hymn come from if it were actually authentically from prior to 70 CE?

The Greek does not indicate it as a quote in any explicit way; it is just that the tenor of the writing changes all of a sudden, and the line length (as marked by the finite verbs) becomes oddly consistent.

imho the Greek is unsuspicious and very compatible with Paul's letters. There are no clear signs against it or for it, but the word choice and the syntax look rather Pauline compared to the entire NT. The same applies, of course, to the letter to the Ephesians.