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)