Thursday, April 18, 2024

Crispin Fletcher-Louis on the Problems with the "name-bearing-angel" explanation of Philippians 2:9-10

  

There are also serious problems with the name-bearing-angel explanation of the gift of the supreme name in verses 9-10. While it is true that the Angel of the Lord is sometimes said to possess the unique and all-powerful name of God (in Exod 23:20-23 and in texts influence by that biblical passage), there is no evidence of any first-century Jewish belief that the divine name was ever given to an angelic figure at some point in their life, much less as a reward for some act of obedience. The angel of Exod 23:20-23 and the name-bearing angel Iaoel are not “given” (Phil 2:9) the divine name at a point in a human-like biography. The Apocalypse of Abraham does not know an angel ‘el who one day become Iaoel. The fact that the latter is called “Iaoel” signifies that he is and always was and always will be an angel of the divine name. The scene of acclamation at the giving of the name in verses 9-11 has no obvious origin in biblical or Jewish traditions. The acclamation motif—though by no means in all its details in this text—is Greek and Roman; not particularly Jewish or mystical . . . (Crispin Fletcher-Louis, The Divine Heartset: Paul’s Philippians Christ Hymn, Metaphysical Affections, and Civic Virtues [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2023], 41-42)

 

It is misleading to say (as does McGrath, Only True God, 12n7) that “the transfer of God’s name to his supreme agent” was “a recurring motif in Jewish literature in this period.” No “transfer” of God’s name to an angel is ever mentioned in any Second Temple text. 3 Enoch is somehow related to Second temple traditions contemporaneous with the New Testament. But in its current form, 3 Enoch is a rabbinic-era text that Peter Schäfer, Origins, 315-16). The remarkable content of 3 Enoch cannot be used to establish Second Temple literary and “mystical” traditions without considerable caution and careful argument demonstrating corroborating evidence form the earlier period. (Ibid., 41 n. 99)