Literary Integrity of Philippians
A number of scholars
regard Philippians as a collection of two or three separate letters.1
In some places there is an awkward break in the sense, e.g. 2:19; 3:1-2;
4:9-10. Epaphroditus is reported to be very ill in 2:25-30 but not in 4:18. The
attack on false teachers in 3:2-4 is unexpected and does not fit into the
positive thrust of other parts of the letter. Appropriate endings are
discernable at 4:1-9, 20-23, indicative of separate missives. Polycarp (Phil. 3.2) made reference to “letters” (plural)
that Paul wrote to the Philippians, and distinct writings have since been
identified as (a) 4:10-20; (b) 1:1–3:1; 4:4-7, 21-23; and (c) 3:2–4:3, 8-9. Nevertheless,
how and why these hypothetical letters came to be joined together in the
present form of Philippians is inexplicable.
Seemingly awkward
breaks are not unusual in a dictated letter from someone like Paul (cf. 1 Cor.
4:17–5:1; 5:13–6:1; 8:13–9:1; 16:12-13; 2 Cor. 9:15–10:1; Gal. 5:15-16;
6:10-11; et al.). It was not necessary to refer to Epaphroditus’ illness every
time his name was mentioned, and the letter could have been written over an
extended period of time. Varied topics and tones are not uncommon in Paul’s writings
(cf. 1-2 Corinthians). The apparent conflict between Eudia and Syntyche (4:2-3)
shows that even in Philippi there were negative situations to face. Discerning
potential endings does not mean that they were intended to be endings, and even if they were, Paul may very well
have decided to say more after these words were penned. While 1 Cor. 4:16-21
may sound like an ending, it certainly does not conclude the letter in which it
is written!
While Polycarp is not
an infallible source, assuming the observation above is true and has been
accurately transmitted (cf. Phil. 3:1), Paul wrote letters that are no longer
extant (e.g. 1 Cor. 5:9; Col. 4:16),2 but this does not suggest that
any were combined to form a single document. The various compilation theories,
while interesting to consider, are less than convincing and offer no rational explanation
for the letter’s current form. There is no legitimate reason to regard
Philippians as anything but a literary unity.3
Conclusion:
The ancient document we
call “Philippians,” addressed to a group of first-century Macedonian Christians,
has remained especially relevant and practical to all who have encountered it
through the centuries, even to this very day. “Finally, brothers, whatever
things are true, whatever things are honorable, whatever things are right, whatever
things are pure, whatever things are lovable, and whatever things are commendable,
if there is anything virtuous and praiseworthy, reflect on these things” (Phil.
4:8)
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 Among
those who view Philippians as a collection of up to three letters are C. J.
Pfeifer, “Three Letters” 363-68; J. Murphy-O’Connor, Letter-Writer 8, 32; B. D. Rahtjen, “Three Letters” 167-73; P.
Sellew, “Fragments Hypothesis” 17-28; “Revisited” 327-29; and J. Veitch, Origins 123-28, 193-204. For a concise
overview of the discussion, see E. D. Freed, Introduction 300-301; D. A. Carson, D. J. Moo, and L. Morris, An Introduction to the NT 325-26; L. A.
Jervis, Purpose 65-68; R. E. Brown Introduction to the NT 496-98; cf. L. M.
White, From Jesus to Christianity
189-94.
2 See The Missing Letters of Paul.
3 Those who
argue in favor of the letter’s integrity include M. Bockmuehl, Philippians 20-25; F. F. Bruce, Philippians 16-19; W. J. Dalton,
“Integrity” 97-102; G. D. Fee, Philippians
21-23; H. Gamble, Textual History
145-46; D. Garland, “Composition” 141-73; K. Grayston, Letters 1-4; G. F. Hawthorne, Philippians
xxix-xxxii; W. Hendrikson, Philippians
31-37; P. Holloway, “Apocryphal” 321-25; T. E. Pollard, “Integrity” 57-66; R.
Russell, “Pauline” 295-306; M. Silva, Philippians
14-16; R. C. Swift, “Theme” 234-54; and D. F. Watson, “Rhetorical Analysis”
57-88.
4 Scripture
quotations are the author’s own translation.
Related Posts: Philippians Part 1, Paul's Prison Epistles
No comments:
Post a Comment