The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (129 page)

INTRODUCTION

A
S THE BOOK of Acts makes clear, Paul established several local congregations in major urban centers on at least three missionary journeys. Toward the end of his distinguished apostolic ministry, and after writing Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans, Paul engaged in additional correspondence with several churches and individuals during his first Roman imprisonment (58—60). Paul's letters to the Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon (commonly called the Prison Epistles) date to this period.

Most likely Philippians was written prior to the other letters. In Phlm 22, Paul expected to be released from prison soon, while in Phil 1:21—25 he inferred what the future held based on spiritual principles, but he had no idea as to the timing of his release.

Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon were all related to the return of Onesimus and were most likely written roughly at the same time and under similar circumstances. But the precise sequence in which these letters were penned is unknown. Because Ephesians and Colossians are connected via Tychicus (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7), and Colossians and Philemon via Onesimus (Col 4:9; Phlm 10) and Epaphras (Col 1:17; 4:12; Phlm 23), and because Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon is the order in which the letters are included in the NT canon, we will discuss these three letters in that same order.

Philippians

KEY FACTS

INTRODUCTION

P
HILIPPIANS STANDS AS a favorite among Paul's letters for many because of its inspiring message of joy in the midst of trying circumstances (e.g., imprisonment). Some students may know Philippians in piecemeal fashion because of the numerous memorable phrases or expressions found in the letter. Familiar phrases include: “For me, living is Christ and dying is gain” (1:21); “so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow… and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (2:10—11); “I am able to do all things through Him who strengthens me” (4:13); and “rejoice in the Lord always.I will say it again: Rejoice!”
(4:4).
However, this “bits and pieces” approach to Philippians does justice neither to the depth of the letter nor to Paul's overall purpose for writing. One must see how the pieces fit together into a coherent whole in order to appreciate truly the profound message of the letter.

HISTORY

Author

Authenticity
Most scholars regard Philippians as an authentic letter written by Paul. Scholarly acceptance of Paul's authorship is so widespread that an extended discussion is unnecessary. The reasons for accepting authenticity are as follows: (1) the letter opens with the words “from Paul” (author's translation); (2) the early church accepted Paul as the author without dissent; and (3) the intensely personal nature of the letter. The early church fathers Polycarp (c. 69-155), Irenaeus (c. 130-200), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150—215), and Tertullian (c. 160—225) unanimously accepted Pauline authorship. This consensus was momentarily questioned in the nineteenth century by critics such as F. C. Baur. Baur's historical reconstructions led to his belief that Paul only wrote Romans, 1 and

2 Corinthians, and Galatians.
¹
But Baur's case did not garner any widespread support, and his arguments have now been largely abandoned (except for an occasional unsuccessful attempt to revive his thesis).

The only major debated element concerning authorship centers on the so-called “Christ hymn”
²
of 2:6—11. Some scholars contend that this passage is pre-Pauline because of (1) the unusual vocabulary; (2) the rhythmic style; (3) the presence of the “servant” theme; and (4) the absence of key Pauline themes such as redemption and resurrection. Those who think Paul wrote 2:6—11 customarily respond by claiming that (1) other Pauline passages contain as many unusual words within a comparable space; (2) other passages convey a rhythmic style; (3) “servant” theology is expressed through the characteristically Pauline
expression “death on a cross” (2:8); and (4) Paul need not mention all of his theology in every passage.
³

Literary Integrity
More serious challenges have been raised against the integrity of the letter.
⁴
The case for a composite letter is sufficiently convincing so that a growing number of scholars have accepted Philippians as a composite document that merged several separate documents into one.
⁵
Factors commonly cited in favor of this include the following.

1. In terms of external evidence, Polycarp's letter to the Philippians provides possible evidence for a composite interpretation, because he stated that Paul wrote “letters” (plural) to the Philippians (Phil 3:2).
   
2. With regard to internal evidence, Paul's opponents do not appear to be the same throughout the letter.
   
3. Also, there appears to be a change in the health of Epaphroditus that assumes a time lapse. Paul stated in 2:25—30 that Epaphroditus was very ill, but Paul does not mention his illness when Epaphroditus's name emerges again in 4:18.
   
4. What appears to be a concluding remark is found at 3:1 (“finally”) halfway through the letter. This remark occurs immediately after a discussion of the travel plans of Paul and his associates, material that one would expect at the end of the letter.
   
5. Along similar lines, 3:1 appears to fit together with
   4:4
   , while an abrupt change of tone occurs at 3:2 and continues through 4:3.
   ⁶
   
6. Surprisingly, Paul waited until the end of the letter to thank the Philippians for their beneficence.
   

However, despite the strength of some of the arguments advanced in favor of a composite reading of Philippians, the case for the letter's unity is even stronger. Responses are as follows.

1. Polycarp's citation of Pauline “letters” written to the Philippians does not necessitate that Philippians in its current form is a composite of several letters. J. B. Lightfoot
argued at length that the plural
epistolai
in Polycarp had the nuance of the singular. He demonstrated that the use of the plural for the singular of “letter” occurred in a number of classical writers, including Thucydides, Josephus, Euripides, Lucian, Julian, and others.
⁷
Even if the plural refers to multiple letters, it is possible that Polycarp wrongly inferred that Paul wrote multiple letters to Philippi based on a misinterpretation of 3:1 rather than direct knowledge that the Philippians possessed multiple letters that Paul wrote to the congregation. Perhaps Polycarp wrongly assumed that when Paul referred to writing the “same things” to the Philippians, he had in mind a previous letter rather than earlier discussions from Paul's ministry while present with the Philippians. But, as O'Brien pointed out, 3:18 appears to confirm that Paul had in mind those things which he had previously taught by mouth.
⁸

2. No external evidence exists for taking Philippians as a composite document. Every Greek manuscript preserves Philippians in its current form, including p
⁴⁶
, a manuscript dating to the late second or early third century. Neither do any of the early church fathers hint at a suspicion that Philippians was a composite document.

3. The references to Epaphroditus do not necessitate a lapse in time. Carson and Moo provided a fitting response to this line of argument: “There is no reason why the man's illness should be brought up every time he is mentioned.”
⁹

4. The same terms and themes pervade all the alleged “parts” of the letter. The mere repetition of lexical terms does not offer conclusive evidence, but repeated vocabulary together with thematic similarities offers a substantial case for unity.
¹⁰

5. The personal nature of Philippians accounts for seemingly abrupt shifts and stylistic variance. In fact, the arguments for the letter's abrupt features cut both ways. Why should one assume that any redactor would stitch these various letters together in what to advocates of a composite document appears to be such a haphazard way?
¹¹

6. The Greek phrase translated “finally” in 3:1 is most likely a transitional, not a terminal, phrase.
¹²
Nor does the mention of Paul's travel plans in the middle of the letter indicate that this section was originally at the conclusion of the document, since 2 Corinthians
and 1 Thessalonians mention travel plans in the body of the letter, and there were good contextual reasons for doing so here as well.
¹³

7. Paul may place his acknowledgment of the Philippians’ generosity at the end of the letter for the sake of emphasis. This structural feature would not betray a lack of gratitude.

Date

The date for Philippians depends on the place of writing. Dates as early as 50 or as late as 63 are possible. If Paul wrote the letter during his first Roman imprisonment, he probably wrote the letter in the late 50s (early 60s in the conventional reckoning). If he wrote the letter during his Caesarean imprisonment, the letter should be dated 55—57 (58—60 in the conventional reckoning). If he wrote from Ephesus, Paul wrote the letter between the years 51 and 54 (54 and 57 in the conventional reckoning). Although the issues are complex, the evidence for a Roman provenance is most persuasive. Philippians appears to have been written somewhat earlier than the other Prison Epistles. Paul appears to have written Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians at about the same time. Philemon implies that Paul's release from prison was imminent (Phlm 21). However, when Paul wrote Philippians, he seemed less certain about the outcome of his trial and was contemplating the possibility that he would be martyred (Phil 1:21—26). On the other hand, Paul's extensive outreach (Phil 1:12—14) and the widespread knowledge of Paul's circumstances suggest that he had been imprisoned in Rome for at least several months at the time that he wrote Philippians. These factors suggest that the composition of Philippians should be dated to around the midpoint of the Roman imprisonment in or around the year 59.
¹⁴

Provenance

The question of provenance is one of the most contested issues in Philippians. Paul clearly identified himself as a prisoner (1:7,13,17), but he did not explicitly state the location of this imprisonment. Presumably, the Philippians knew where Paul was imprisoned and thus did not need to be told. Three different answers commend themselves as worthy of consideration: (1) Rome;
¹⁵
(2) Caesarea; and (3) Ephesus.
¹⁶

The traditional view places Paul's imprisonment in Rome. A Roman imprisonment hypothesis would account for (1) the mention of the Praetorium (1:13) and Caesar's household (4:22); (2) the loose restrictions implied by his activity during his imprisonment (see Acts 28:16,30—31); (3) references to a seemingly well-established church (1:14); (4) external evidence such as the subscription added by the first corrector of Codex Vaticanus and the comments in the Marcionite Prologue;
¹⁷
and (5) the “life or death” nature of the imprisonment (Paul could have appealed to Caesar while under any other imprisonment).

Until recently the Roman hypothesis held almost universal sway. But scholars began to note two primary weaknesses in the traditional hypothesis related to geography and Paul's travel plans. First, the distance between Philippi and Rome (about 1,200 miles) renders the number of journeys implied in Philippians (perhaps as many as seven) problematic.
¹⁸
Second, the letter to the Romans mentions Paul's intention to travel to Spain (Rom 15:24,28), while Philippians states that Paul planned to visit Philippi after his release (Phil 2:24). Beginning in the nineteenth century, these problems led some critics to propose Caesarea as the place of writing for Philippians. Some scholars advocated a Caesarean provenance because (1) Acts records a two-year imprisonment in that location (Acts 24:27); (2) Herod had Praetorian guards there (Acts 23:35); and (3) an early date hypothesis places Paul's Judaizing opponents of 3:2-4 within the same time frame as his earlier letters.

But the Caesarean hypothesis is also problematic because its distance from Philippi leads to many of the same problems raised against the Roman hypothesis, and there is no evidence of a thriving church in Caesarea that would account for the scenario in Phil 1:12—18. Since 1897, the Caesarean hypothesis has been eclipsed by the Ephesian hypothesis, which was first proposed by A. Deissmann.
¹⁹
This view currently enjoys the strongest advocacy for the following reasons: (1) though Acts does not identify an imprisonment in Ephesus, Paul mentioned many imprisonments not recorded in Acts (2 Cor 11:23);
²⁰
(2) the close proximity of Ephesus to Philippi eases the concern over the possibility of the number of trips between Paul's place of imprisonment and Philippi; (3) Philippians bears a close literary affinity to Paul's earlier letters;
²¹
(4) inscriptions show a section of the Praeto
rian Guard was stationed at Ephesus;
²²
and (5) Philippians fails to mention Luke, who was with Paul in Rome (2 Tim 4:11) but probably not with him during his Ephesian ministry in Acts (i.e., the Ephesian ministry is not one of the “we” passages in Acts).
²³