Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:42:45.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Helmut Koester
Helmut Koester
Affiliation:
Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent years an old problem has been reconsidered in four studies, apparently written independently of one another, which with similar arguments arrive at virtually the same conclusion:1 The Epistle to the Philippians is actually a composition of three Pauline Epistles or fragments thereof.2 According to this conclusion, Phil. iv. 10−20 was the first letter written by Paul to Philippi, i. 1−ii. 30 (or iii. 1) the second, and iii. 1 (or 2)−iv. 1 the third, while the distribution of iv. 2−9 and 21−3 remains uncertain.3

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , July 1962 , pp. 317 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Schmithals, W., ‘Die Irrlehrer des Phiipperbriefes’, Z.Th.K. LIV (1957), 299–305;Google ScholarMüller-Bardorff, J., ‘Zur Frage der literarischen Einheit des Philipperbriefes’, Wissenschaftl. Zeitschr. d. Universitätjena, VII (1957/1958), 591–604;Google ScholarBeare, F. W., The Epistle to the Philippians (1959), pp. 3f., 100–2;Google ScholarRahtjen, B. D., ‘The Three Letters of Paul to the Philippians’, N.T.S. VI (1959/1960), 167–73.Google Scholar On the earlier discussion of this question see Schmithals, , op. cit. pp. 299f.,Google Scholar and Rahtjen, , op. cit. p. 168.Google Scholar A division into two epistles has been suggested recently by Friedrich, G., ‘Der Brief an die Philipper’ in Das Neue Testament Deutsch (Die kleineren Briefe des Apostels Paulus), vol. VIII (9th ed. 1961).Google Scholar

2 The arguments presented by these investigations are convincing. The conclusions, however, have not found general acceptance. Against Schmithals see Michaelis, W., ‘Teilungshypothesen bei Paulusbriefen’, Theol. Zeitschr. XIV (1958), 321–6.Google Scholar In a recent issue of the present Journal, Mackay, B. S., ‘Further Thoughts on Philippians’, N.T.S. VII (1960/1961), 161–70,Google Scholar aware only of Rathjen's article, has made a plea for the integrity of the epistle. See also Delling, G., ‘Philipperbrief’, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, V (3rd ed. 1961), 333–6.Google Scholar

3 According to Schmithals, , op. cit., iv. 2–3 and 8–9Google Scholar belong to the last letter (= the third chapter), iv. 4–7 to the second (= chapters i–ii), whereas iv. 21−3 are the conclusion of the first letter, that is, the preceding verses of the chapter iv. Rathjen, , op. cit., considers iv. 21–3Google Scholar to be the original ending of i. i–ii. 30 and takes iii. 1–iv. 9 in one piece as the last of the three letters, the first letter iv. 10–20 having lost its original postscript. Beare, , op. cit., takes iv. 2–9 and 21–3 to be parts of the basic letter (the second in sequence) i. 1-ii. 1. Müller-Bardorff, op. cit., presents a more complicated hypothesis about the original order and sequence of the three epistles.Google Scholar

4 Beare, , op. cit. p. 100.Google Scholar

5 The suggestion that this fragment was from a letter originally addressed not to Philippi, but to some other church (Beare, , op. cit. p. 101),Google Scholar leaves us the task of explaining how such a fragment came to be incorporated into a composite letter ‘To the Philippians’. Furthermore, this suggestion is based upon the assumption (which we shall discuss later) that Phil. iii. 2ff. is a polemic against Jews and therefore could not have been addressed to the Roman colony of Philippi, since ‘there were few Jews in Philippi’ (Beare, , op. cit. p. 101).Google Scholar

1 Concerning earlier attempts to solve the problem of the identity of the opponents, see Schmithals, , op. cit. pp. 297, 309–11.Google Scholar

2 Op. cit. p. 101.Google Scholar This interpretation leads Beare to the conclusion that Phil. iii was written originally to another church; Cf., note 5, p. 317 above.Google Scholar

3 Op. cit. p. 533.Google Scholar

4 Op. cit. pp. 533–4.Google Scholar

5 Op. cit. pp. 129–30.Google Scholar

6 Op. cit. (cf., note 1, p. 317 above).Google Scholar

7 Op. cit. pp. 333–5. In addition to what we find in Beare's commentary, Schmithals explains the phrase, ‘whose God is the belly’ (iii. 19), as ‘disregard for food-laws’.Google Scholar

8 This seems to me to be a good and sound standard; in this respect I am totally in agreement with Schmithals; cf., especially op. cit. p. 310.Google Scholar I disagree with Beare's ironic remark about the ‘surprising number of generally sober commentators [who] have felt themselves obliged to link the two sections [i.e. iii. 2ff. and iii. 18ff.]’, op. cit. p. 133.Google Scholar

1 Again in agreement with Beare; see above.

2 According to Schmithals, this claim of being perfect was particularly based on their individual experiences of revelations, references to which he finds in iii. 15: ‘God will reveal this also to you’; op. cit. pp. 327–9.Google Scholar

3 Op. cit. p. 315.Google Scholar

4 Op. cit. p. 315.Google Scholar

5 Cf., op. cit. pp. 316–18. It is not by chance that the word ‘law’ does not occur in these pages of Schmithals's article; the term ‘righteousness’ is also missing.Google Scholar

6 E.g. Dibelius, M., An die Philipper (1937 8), pp. 86–7:Google Scholar ‘Unclean foreigners’; Lohmeyer, , Die Briefe an die Philipper, Kolosser, Philemon pp. 124f.:Google Scholar A contrast as radical as that of man and dog— therefore the opponents could not have had any relations to the Christian faith; Beare, , op. cit. p. 103 thinks of the half-savage dogs: ‘Jewish missionaries prowl around the Christian congregations’—as such dogs prowl around a camp and forage.Google Scholar

7 Schmithals, , op. cit. p. 311;Google Scholarcf., Dibelius, op. cit. p. 87;Google ScholarMichel, O., Κύων, κυνάριον T.W.N.T. III, 1100 ff.Google Scholar Schmithals is mistaken when he claims that the word could not refer to Jews who were obedient to the law (op. cit. p. 311). Precisely this would give the insult its real force! Of course, Paul is not insulting ‘his people’ as a whole, but only some opponents who are spreading a Jewish-. type propaganda in Philippi.Google Scholar

1 The verb κατατέμνειν in the LXX, and more consistently among the later translators, translates the Hebrew word for these forbidden practices of cultic self-mutilation. Lohmeyer, , op. cit. p. 125, was the first to draw attention to this use of the word in the Greek O.T. For a more detailed substantiation, I refer the reader to my article which is to appear in T.W.N.T. VII.Google Scholar

2 I do not agree with Schmithals, W., ‘Die Häretiker in Galatien’, Z.N.W. XLVII (1956), 25–61, who holds that the opponents in Galatia were not primarily interested in Law and Circumcision, but rather were Gnostics like those in Corinth.Google Scholar

3 Cf., Schmithals, Z.Th.K. LIV (1957), 312f.Google Scholar

4 Käsemann, E., ‘Die Legitimität des Apostels’, Z.N. W. XVI (1942), 39, also Counts έργάται, II Cor. XI. 13, among the titles of the opponents.Google Scholar

5 These are the only instances in which Paul uses the word έργάτης, whereas in other parts of the N.T. there is no hesitation to apply this word to the missionary, cf., Matt. ix. 37f.Google Scholar and par; Luke, xiii. 27 (but here έργάται άδικας!); II Tim. ii. 15; see also the famous saying άξιος ό έργάτγς τοũ μισθοũ (Luke x. 7 and par.; I Tim. v. 18).Google Scholar

6 Revised Standard Version; similarly the Authorized Version.

7 46P46omits the word ‘God’ altogether, another attempt to ease the awkwardness of the best attested reading.

8 Beare, , op. cit. p. 105.Google Scholar

1 Beare, , op. cit. p. 105;Google Scholar Beare refers to John, iv. 21–4 as a parallel.Google ScholarDibelius, , op. cit. p. 87, interprets this sentence as speaking about the relationship with God by means of the Spirit.Google Scholar

2 Cf., Strathmann, T.W.N.T. IV, 59–61.Google Scholar

3 Cf., Strathmann, op. cit. pp. 63–5.Google Scholar

4 Related is the use of the noun λατρεία in ή λογική λαγρείαύμ⋯ν (Rom, . xii. 1).Google Scholar However, cf., Strathmann, op. cit. p. 65: ‘Die konkrete Vorstellung des Opfers scheint am Nomen fester zu haften als am Verbum.’Google Scholar

5 Concerning έν τ῰ πνεύματί μου (Rom. i. 9), instead of θεοũ see Strathmann, , op. cit. p. 64.Google Scholar

6 See Schmithals, , Die Gnosie in Korinth (1956), pp. 134ff.Google Scholar I do not agree with Schmithals's conclusion that, therefore, the opponents in both cases must have been Gnostics of one and the same brand (cf. also Schmithals, , Z.Th.K. LIV (1957), 313).Google Scholar For the character of the πγεũμα-doctrine of the héretics in II Corinthians see Bornkamm, G., ‘Glaube und Vernunft bei Paulus’ (in Stud. zu Antike und Urchristentum, 1959), pp. 130f.;Google ScholarGeorgi, D., Die Gegner des Paulus in II Cor. ii. 14-vii. 4 und x-xiii (Dissertation, Heidelberg, 1957).Google Scholar

7 The parallel word πεποιθέναι, which is also used here (Phil, . iii.4),Google Scholar is almost synonymous; see Bultmann, , πείθω, T. W.N. T. VI, 7–8.Google Scholar

8 See especially II Cor. xi. 16ff. and xii. 1 ff.

9 As a matter of fact, II Cor. xi. 18, 21 ff. is a precise parallel to these verses, as Schmithals has shown, Z. Th.K. LIV (1957), 316f.Google Scholar

1 That here too Paul is addressing Christians who claim to be perfect is particularly clear in the captatio benevolentiae, őσοι ούγ τέλειοι, iii. 15.Google Scholar

2 For this question see Schmithals, , op. cit. pp. 325–9;Google ScholarWilckens, U., Weisheit und Torheit (1959), pp. 53–60;Google ScholarPlessis, P. J. du, ΤΕΛΕΟΣ (Kampen, 1959). For the older literature, see W. Bauer, Wörterbuch, s.v.Google Scholar

3 See especially Wilckens, op. cit.

4 Cf., Schmithals, op. cit. p. 323.Google Scholar

5 The inclusion of circumcision indicates that this perfection goes beyond merely moral qualifications. it is also highly probable that the opponents counted among the signs of such perfection spiritual revelations, as Schmithals assumes (op. cit. p. 328,Google Scholarre Phil, . iii. 15):Google Scholar

1 Beare, see above.

2 Schmithals, see above.

3 Beare, , op. cit. p. 118.Google Scholar

4 The formulation of vu. 10–11 is chiastic: the first and last members speaking about the future expectation (ή δύναμις τής άναστάσεως—ήέχ νεκρ῰ν), the second and third describing the presentsituation (κοινωνία παθημάτων αύτοũ–συμμορφιзόμενος τ῰ θανάτω αύτοũ). For parallels to this two fold application of Christ's death and resurrection see, above all, II Cor. iv. 7ff.; cf. also the strict use of the future tense when Paul speaks of the resurrection of the Christians in Rom, . vi. 1 ff. and I Cor. xv (contrast Col. ii. 12; iii. i and Eph. 5–6, which I cannot accept as authentic Pauline formulations).Google Scholar

5 For attempts to explain this strange formulation see Lohmeyer, , op. cit. pp. 138–42Google Scholar (= the special resurrection for the martyr); and Beare, , op. cit. pp. 125–8 (= the resurrection of the Christians as distinguished from the general resurrection). I do not see any reason for such a distinction.Google Scholar

6 Here I agree with Schmithals, , op. cit. pp. 319ff., although it seems to me impossible to speak of people who deny the resurrection. On the contrary, they claim the resurrection to be their present possession.Google Scholar

1 See Bultmann, , γινώσκω, T.W.N. T. I, 708 ff. particularly p. 710.Google Scholar

2 I should like to warn against a recent trend in scholarship that takes the Jewish background of Gnosticism only as a formal definition of the origins of the Gnostic movement, and then proceeds to define the content of Gnostic thought predominantly on the basis of later Christian sources. This trend is especially obvious in Schmithals's articles.

3 Schmithals, , op. cit. pp. 332 ff.Google Scholar

4 Rev, . ii. 14ff.Google Scholar is certainly one generation later; the same is true of Jude. I Cor. vi. 12 ff. is not simply libertine, but the complement of certain ascetic ideals (cf., I Cor. vii. 1f.).Google Scholar

5 Although exegetes usually do not go so far as to understand αίσχύη as ‘pudenda’.

6 So far as I know, only Karl, Barth, Erklārung desPhilipperbriefes (1928), p. 111, here refers the reader to the ‘gesalzene Polemik’ of iii. 2. Barth in this section as elsewhere reveals an admirable under. standing of the subject-matter that is discussed between Paul and his opponents. In this respect, I owe more to his excellent little commentary than to any other book or article on Philippians, although I disagree in many details, as well as with Barth's thesis that those opposed here were Jews.Google Scholar

1 Beare, , op. cit. pp. 133f.;Google ScholarDibelius, M., op. cit. p. 93.Google Scholar

2 The polemical impulse is reflected in the abrupt and syntactically incorrect formulation of the sentence; cf., Lohmeyer, op. cit. p. 152.Google Scholar

3 Such an explanation is rightly rejected by Lohmeyer, , op. cit. p. 153.Google Scholar

4 See also Gal, . vi. 12–14.Google Scholar

5 See Wilckens, U., Weisheit und Torheit (1959), and ‘Kreuz und Weisheit’, Kerygma und Dogma III (1957), 77–108.Google Scholar

6 See also II Cor. iv. 7ff.

7 Cf., R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (1951), 1, 303.Google Scholar

8 This would mean, that Lohmeyer, , op. cit. p. 153,Google Scholar is not completely wrong when he says that the enemies of the cross are those who seek to escape martyrdom. Dibelius, , op. cit. p. 93, has seen a similar connexion, when he says: ‘έχθροι τοũ σταυροũ heissen sie vielleicht, well ihr Leben es an dem σνμμορ-φίзεσθαι τ῰ θανάτω αύτοũ iii. 10 fehlen lässt.’ But Dibelius does not draw any consequences from this excellent statement.Google Scholar

9 Cf. the analysis of Lohmeyer, , op. cit. pp. 153–6.Google Scholar

10 Lohmeyer, , op. cit. p. 156.Google Scholar

11 Ibid. p. 154.

1 Cor, I. xv. 24; especially II Cor. xi. 15: ⋯ν τό τέλος έσται κατά τά έργα αύτ⋯ν.Google Scholar

2 Cf. also τέλειος in Phil. iii. 12–15.Google Scholar

3 ‘Eternal destruction’ in the eschatological judgement is almost exclusively the meaning of άπὠλεια in the N.T.; see Bauer, W., Wörterbuch, s. v.;Google ScholarOepke, , άπόλλυμι, T. W.N. T. I, 395–6.Google Scholar

4 Beare, , op. cit. p. 136; he also emphasizes: ‘There is no need to go beyond the obvious meaning.’Google Scholar

5 Examples for such usage are quoted by Dibelius, , op. cit. p. 93,Google Scholar and Lohmeyer, , op. cit. p. 154;Google ScholarBehm, , κοιλία, T. W.N. T. I, 788, note 11.Google Scholar

6 See Behm, , op. cit. pp. 787f.Google Scholar

7 Matt, . xix. 12;Google ScholarLuke, 1. 15passzm.Google Scholar

8 Mark, vii. 19passim.Google Scholar

9 Mark, vii. 19Google Scholar par; cf. also I, Tim. iv. 3, although the term κοίλα does not occur here.Google Scholar

10 I., Cor. vi. 13.Google Scholar

11 Examples in Behm, , op. cit. p. 788, n. 14.Google Scholar

12 Compare the similar case of the heresy in Colossae, , Col. ii. 16, 20ff.;Google Scholar On this question see Bornkamm, G., ‘Die Häresie des Kolosserbriefes’, Das Ends des Gesetzes (1958 2), pp. 139 ff.Google Scholar

13 That αίσχύνη is to be understood as ‘shame’ in the sense of ‘perdition’, see below.

1 Outside of these three passages Paul uses κοιλία only in Gal, . i. 15 where it has the meaning ‘mother's womb’.Google Scholar

2 See Michel, O., Der Brief an die Römer (1955), pp. 346ff.Google Scholar

3 Note the close connexion between τέλος and θεωθήναι in the sentence from Corp. Herm. quoted above.

4 Examples for such word usage were first collected by Reitzenstein, R., Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (1927 3 [1956]), pp. 358ff.;Google Scholar see also W. Bauer, Wörterbuch s.v.–It is impossible to discuss here the entire problem involved. The criticism that Reitzenstein's texts are all from a later period (Kittel, , δόξα T.W.N.T. II, 255f.) is beside the point, since precisely in those texts we find a continuation of the use of δόξα in the Jewish tradition from which Paul and John doubtlessly learned such usage.Google Scholar

5 The transformation described in these verses could be adequately called δοξασθναι.

6 That is, the German word ‘Schande’ as distinct from ‘Scham’, both of which are included in the English word ‘shame’ as well as in the Greek αίσχύνη.

7 Cf., R. Bultmann, αίσχύνω, T.W.N.T. I, 190.Google Scholar

8 Against Bultmann, , op. cit. p. 190.Google Scholar Further, I cannot see any allusion to the practice of circumcision in the use of the word here (Barth, K., op. cit. p. 111).Google Scholar

1 Op. cit. p. 111.Google Scholar

2 Only in Phil. ii. 10 is this a juxtaposition without a contrast, the third parallel term being καταχθόνια. The argument in John, iii. 12 is certainly based upon the contrast of the two terms; cf also Ign. Eph. xiii. 2.Google Scholar

3 Although such may be implied, as in James, iii. 15,Google Scholar where the σοφία έπίγειος is said to cause jealousies and selfishness; cf. also Herm, . Mand. ix. 11.Google Scholar

4 See also Herm, . Mand. xi. 5ff., where the spirit of the false prophet is called πνεũμα έπίγειον, in contrast to the πνεũμα από θεοũ νωθεν which the true prophet possesses.Google Scholar

5 Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, I, 214.Google Scholar

6 Cf., II Cor. xiii. 11; Phil. ii. 2a.Google Scholar

7 Cf., Rom. viii. 6: φρόνημα τής σαρκός.Google Scholar

1 The use of the word φρονεīν indeed seems to be motivated primarily by such controversial concerns. This is particularly clear if we notice that Out of twenty-five occurrences of the word in the Pauline epistles as many as nineteen are to be found in Rom, . xii–xivGoogle Scholar and Phil, . i–iv.Google Scholar

2 There is not a single instance in the genuine epistles of Paul in which the resurrection of the Christians in the past or present is referred to as the basis of the imperative. On the contrary, the resurrection of the believer remains a future expectation, or it is contained in the imperative itself that is, it is only present in the dialectical demand to walk in the newness of life; see especially Rom, . vi. 1 ff.Google Scholar It is a great weakness of most of the investigations of Pauline theology that this basic difference between Paul and Ephesians/Colossians is overlooked; cf. for example, the most recent contribution to our problem, Stanley, D. M., Christ's Resurrection in Pauline Soteriology (Analecta Biblica, 1961), who unfortunately disregards the controversial issues that necessarily had to arise from a Christological reinterpretation of Jewish apocalyptic beliefs. Stanley also pays no attention to the polemical setting of some of the Pauline statements on the Resurrection.Google Scholar

3 Although with a limitation showing that Ignatius himself is conscious of the dangerous aspects of such φρονεīν έν θε: ‘but I measure myself that I may not perish by boasting’.

4 New English Bible; to give only a most recent example. Of course, such translations do not presuppose our exegesis, that the opponents asserted that they themselves were participating in heaven already now.

1 This interpretation seems to receive support if the use of the word πολίτενμα here indicates that Paul considers the church as a ‘colony of citizens of heaven on earth’; cf., Dibelius, op. cit. p. 93;Google ScholarBeare, , op. cit. p. 136.Google Scholar Concerning πολίτευμα as the technical term for ‘colonies of foreigners’ in hellenistic times, see Strathmann, , πόλις T.W.N. T. VI, 519;Google Scholar also Dibelius, op. cit. But then Paul would have said πολίτευμα ούραν⋯ν έής γής and not ποίτευμα έν ούρανοīς, see also Strathmann, , op. cit. p. 535.Google Scholar

2 The word, therefore, is to be understood in its concrete sense: The visible and real body of citizens who constitute the state.

3 It has been suggested the γάρ be understood as elliptic, presupposing an unspoken thought: ‘such conduct is not fitting in a Christian believer, for…’ (Beare, , op. cit. p. 136). But perhaps the connexion between the two sentences is more direct, and therefore the γάρ is simply causal.Google Scholar

4 The accentuated position of the ήμ⋯ν also becomes clear now (cf., Blass-Debrunner-Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, 1961, p. 284).Google Scholar

5 This apocalyptic meaning of the title σωγήρ derives from the Greek O.T. Concerning its use in our passage and in other similarly eschatological contexts (Tit. ii. 13 Acts v. 31; xiii. 23, etc.) see Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, I, 79;Google Scholar H. Conzelmann (M. Dibelius), Excursus σωτήρ in: Die Pastoralbriefe (1955), pp. 94–7;Google ScholarCullmann, O., Christology of the New Testament (1957), pp. 241–5.Google Scholar There is certainly no reference here to the Emperor cult, as was sometimes assumed (literature in Conzelmann, , op. cit. p. 94).Google Scholar

6 Cullmann, O., op. cit. p. 242, without special reference to our passage, has shown that such is the specific meaning of the title σωτήρ in the N.T. —a meaning derived from the O.T. usage of the word.Google Scholar

1 Again in I Cor. xv. 51ff. (and in 24ff.) Paul uses an apocalyptic tradition of Jewish–Christian origin, probably the same one to which he refers in I Thess. iv. 15ff. as a ‘Logos Kyriou’ (in Cor, I. XV. 51 as a ‘Mysterion’).Google Scholar I suppose that this traditional Logos is also used here; thus Phil, . iii. 21 is a direct continuation of iii. 20, and both verses are to be understood as strictly apocalyptic, that is, including the reference to the politeuma in heaven!Google Scholar

1 Schmithals, W., ‘Zur Abfassung und Sammlung der ältesten Paulusbriefe’, Z.N.W. LI (1960), 226f. points to this problem, and he obviously believes that any explanation of the phenomenon that does not result in the establishment of a single heretical front for all Pauline epistles is wrong by definition. For the time being I refer the reader to my article ‘Haeretiker im Urchristentum’ in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd ed., vol. III.Google Scholar