If, on the other hand, the name is “Jesus,”
we have the bizarre conclusion that, according to this early tradition, the resurrected
one whom Paul and his peers followed was only given that name after his death.
But every other early tradition agrees that “Jesus (of Nazareth)” was his name
during his human life. Moule’s interpretation also suggests the theologically problematic
conclusion that the name “Jesus” has now replaced the supreme name YHWH. That
may be empirically true of some church discourse today, but how likely is it
that the historical Paul would have praised Christ in words that left others to
draw such a conclusion? It is, in any case, hard to find any parallel for the
notion that Christ was given the exalted name “Jesus” after his death and
resurrection. (It is true that in Eph 1:21 there is exaltation “far above all
rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is
named . . .” This is not far from Phil 2:9-11. But the name used there is “Christ”
[in v. 20] or κυριος ‘Ιησους
Χριστος [in
v. 17], not “Jesus”). (Crispin Fletcher-Louis, The Divine Heartset: Paul’s
Philippians Christ Hymn, Metaphysical Affections, and Civic Virtues [Eugene,
Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2023], 418-19)
The attempt to defend Moule’s view in
Martin and Nash, “Subversive Hymnos,” 132 on the grounds that verse 91-b merely
means “his name is exalted—that is, that his name takes on a newly acknowledged
status,” founders on the fact that this is now that the text says. It does not
say “wherefore, God also highly exalted his name above all names” (cf. Hem 9;5;
Ps 148:13). Rather, the gift of the name corresponds to the common horrific convention
(well attested in the epigraphic and literary records) of the gift of new
names, titles, or epithets to praiseworthy or transformed mortals. (Ibid., 418 n.
15)
