Loading...In my previous post I answered, in short order, a series of questions that a reader had about the “original” text of Paul’s letter to the Philippians. I will now take several posts in order to address some of the questions at greater length. Here was the first one:
QUESTION: Would you agree that the letter written to the Philippians was an original writing of Paul?
The short answer is Yes – it is one of the undisputed Pauline letters. The longer answer is, well, complicated. Scholars have long adduced reasons for thinking that this letter of Paul was originally *two* letters (or parts of two letters) that were later spliced together into the one letter we have today. I explain the reasons for thinking so in my textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Here is what I say there. (If you want to follow the argument particularly well, I’d recommend reading the short letter of Philippians, and then reading what follows by looking up the passages referred to. But my comments should make decent sense if you don’t have the time or inclination to do that much work…)
***********************************************************
The first two chapters of Philippians sound very much like a “friendship” letter written by Paul to his converts. The occasion of the letter is reasonably evident (see esp. 2:25-30). The Philippians had sent to Paul one of their stalwart members, a man named Epaphroditus, for some reason that is not yet disclosed (and won’t be until chapter 4). While there ministering to Paul, Epaphroditus had taken ill; the Philippians had heard of his illness, and had grown concerned. Epaphroditus in turn had learned of their concern and became distraught over the anxiety that he had caused. Fortunately, his health had returned, and he was now set to make his journey back home to Philippi. Paul wrote this letter to keep the Philippians informed of his situation and to express his pleasure that all had turned out well.
He sends the letter from prison (1:7). We do not know where he is imprisoned or why, except that it is in connection with his preaching of the gospel. He uses the letter to comment on his adversity and to reassure his congregation that it has turned out for the good: as a result of his bonds, others have become emboldened to preach (1:12-18). Paul uses his own situation to explain that suffering is the destiny of Christians in the present age (1:29-30) — a message comparable to that which he proclaimed in the Corinthian correspondence. He continues by providing some general words of admonition (as was common in friendship letters): the Philippians are to be unified, serving one another rather than themselves, and thereby following the example of Christ (2:1-11).
One of the most striking features of this letter comes after these general exhortations. For the friendly and joyful tone that characterizes the letter’s first two chapters shifts almost without warning at the beginning of chapter three. Indeed, if one didn’t know that there were two more chapters left in the book, it would appear that the letter was drawing to a close at the end of chapter two.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, go your paid membership account. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!!
Members’ Content Continues:
You mention some think it may even be three letters spliced together – is there any consensus as to what those three would have been? One saying that Epaphroditus had recovered and was returning home, one saying that E. had just arrived with the gifts and messages, and the angry letter about the Judaisers and the disruptive women?
Ha, good question! It’s been so long since I’ve actually thought about the three-letter theory that I don’t remember the exact breakdown — and I’m out of the country right now, on the road, without a book in sight! So I’m afraid I can’t help you on this one….
In “The New Testament: An Introduction,” Norman Perrin divided the letter into three fragments. (1) Verses 4:10-20 is “a letter of thanks to the Philippians for revival of their concern for Paul and the gifts sent to him at the hands of Epaphroditus.” (2) Verses 1:1-3:1 are from another letter expressing thanks “for the concern the Philippians have expressed for Paul, who is now enduring a considerable period of imprisonment.” (3) Verses 3:2-4:9 are from a letter “warning the Philippians of the dangers of the ‘circumcision party'” in a situation similar to the one that Paul faced in his letter to the Galatians. Perrin thought the third was the first written, while the other two have an “attitude of thanksgiving for dangers passed and harmony achieved.” I have no idea if there is any sort of consensus regarding his three letter theory. My guess is no… this is academics after all. 😉
Yes, I used to have Perrin’s view as well!
Professor Ehrman, I am new to the blog and not very computer savvy at that, so forgive me if I am not following blog protocols. I cannot figure out how to ask a new question, so I am asking here: ” A Course in Miracles” offers an elegant solution to the theodetic problem of evil and suffering as outlined by you in your masterful “God’s Problem,” albeit with a good deal of intellectual violence to conventional understanding of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and what comprises reality and the phenomenological universe. Are you familiar with these writings? If not, I recommend ACIM, itself and “The World, The Flesh, and the Devil,” by Dr. Kenneth Wapnick (Foundation for A Course in Miracles), a dense, but very scholarly treatment of the subject. IF what it propounds is true, it’s an elegant solution to theodicy and the salvation of the world: nevertheless, it’s a big IF: could it be true? I would truly appreciate your take on this radical but interesting theology.
Yes, I know of the Course in Miracles, but have only glanced at it. It did not at all appear to be the kind of work that appeals to me, as it seemed completely uninformed about issues related to my areas of expertise. So I don’t have a detailed critique to offer.
I am sure you have covered this in one of your books I have not yet read. But could you tell me or direct me to where I can find out.
What I have wondered on occasion when reading your work is what method is used to distinguish a writing that changes as this one under discussion. Could not a person write then put the writing aside and come back at a later time and complete the letter? When incidents could have taken place, time passed and moods change etc? What is in the wording or writing that causes you to believe for instance that it may be two writers or letters and not just a change by the writer? Is the way an individual writes and expresses himself or herself that clearly identifiable and constant?
Yes, scholars who work on this kind of thing consider all the possibilities, weigh the evidence, and argue for and against every option before reaching a conclusion. In the present case, the problems with thinking, for example, that Paul wrote just one letter and put it aside for a while and then picked it up again are that the final chapters presuppose the earlier historical situation (Epaphroditus has just arrived and Paul is thanking them for the gift) and the earlier chapters the later situations (Epaphroditus, after his arrival, has taken ill, the Philippians have heard of it, Epaphroditus has heard that they have heard and become distressed, but now he has gotten better, etc.) So it wouldn’t work to think that he wrote 1-2 (the later letter) and then put it aside before writing 3-4 (the earlier letter).
Bart,
I first heard of you through a YouTube debate. I was very impressed with the scholarly and civil debate. I started to read your books soon after an unfortunate incident at my church. I must admit that I was reading them as one would any book. I slowly stared referring to my NRSV study bible as I read your work and others in this area biblical scholarship. All I can say is wow what a difference in the depth of study and understanding. So I read Philippians as you suggested and you are absolutely right in following your argument with a deeper understanding. A lot to ponder. Thank you!
Wayne
Hi,
I have a silly question: why would anyone feel encouraged to preach by learning of Paul’s misery? Does that mean that very early on this idea of marthyrdom was very much consolidated in the Christian tradition? Was this concept considered ok in antiquity??
Thank you as always.
Great questions. (Aren’t you supposed to be watching the World Cup??) It’s usually thought that Paul was setting an example that others would follow: if *he* is willing to preach at all costs, we ought to be also! He was not yet a martyr — since he hadn’t died yet! And I’m not sure a “tradition” of martyrdom had yet come into being among the Christians. But it certainly did not long after this.
Yup! But still reading my one and only blog!
The game (Brazil vs Croatia) yesterday was very painful, btw…
Fascinating. Curious – do we have any manuscripts of Phillipians with any striking omissions or additions?
Lots of changes here and there, nothing earthshattering.
This is very helpful and makes sense. Thanks
Can we assume from 4:22 that the gospel had already reached Nero’s household only twenty five to thirty years after Jesus’ death? Would you interpret this statement to mean that Paul was in Rome himself?
thanks
Household in antiquity doesn’t mean what it does today. Nero’s household would include all the slaves that he owned, scattered throughout the empire, for example.
In reading the ending of chapter 2 through the first few verses of chapter 3 in my NRSV there’s a footnote on the word “rejoice” in 3:1 that says “or ‘farewell’ “. That would seem to make it look even more like the ending of chapter 2 was the ending of a letter. Do you agree with this other possible translation of whatever the Greek word used for “rejoice” is?
A somewhat related question and something I’ve been wondering about for some time…. In a collection of epistles how would one letter end and another begin? Is there a blank area in between or something to denote a new letter beginning? Since we have about 150 years between the writing of the original texts and the first extant copies is it considered a possibility among scholars that in that 150 years the texts of multiple “letters to the Philippians”, for example, started to run together through various coincidental means such as scribes not having enough room to write everything, scribes being sloppy, scribes being ignorant, etc. I’ve just been wondering about when the period of time was where the various churches went from understanding that they had (possibly) multiple letters from Paul to thinking they only had one.
Hmmm… I”d have to look at the Greek, and I’m out of the country and away from my books. Sorry! But the reason for thinking that letters were not simply elided when originally sitting next to ecah other in manuscripts is that there were set ways to begin and end letters, and for the elision to take place someone would have to delete the ending of one and the beginning of the other manually; a lot of the text would have to drop out, for both letters.
DR EHRMAN:
YOUR COMMENT:
The Philippians had sent to Paul one of their stalwart members, a man named Epaphroditus, for some reason that is not yet disclosed (and won’t be until chapter 4).
MY COMMENT:
What I’m deducing from 2:19-30 is that Timothy and Epaphroditus were fellow workers with Paul and were traveling with Him. Paul was imprisoned and these two ministered to Him. Paul continued to communicate with the churches through them. Paul thought it necessary to send Epaphroditus to the Philippians instead of sending Timothy, whom he also intended to send to them very soon, because after Epaphroditus returned from his first trip to the Phillipians he became sick to the point of death and the Phillippians heard of it so Paul decided to send Epaphroditus instead of Timothy so that the Philippians could see Him again and be free from concern about him.
MY QUESTIONS:
1-If Epaphroditus was a “stalwart member” of the Philippi church, Why does Paul write to the Philippians exhorting them to receive Epaphroditus in the Lord with all joy, and hold men like him in high regard?
2-Was it the Philippians who sent Epaphroditus to Paul or was it Paul who sent Epaphroditus to the Philippians?
3-Why does Paul say 2:25, “But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need;”
4-Why does Paul say 2:28, “Therefore I have sent him, (Epaphroditus) all the more eagerly so that when you see him again you may rejoice and I may be less concerned about you.”
5-What does Paul mean by telling the Philippians at the end of 2:28, “when you see him (Epaphroditus) again…?
YOUR COMMENT:
Indeed, the words that follow are hard to understand in the present context: “To write the same things to you is not troublesome to me, and for you it is a safeguard” (3:1). Why would anyone find his exhortation to “rejoice” troubling?
MY COMMENT:
DR EHRMAN I understand Paul as stating that for him it’s no trouble to write the same things over again.
I don’t understand your question. “Why would anyone find his exhortation to “rejoice” troubling”? What do you mean?
YOUR COMMENT:
Paul immediately launches into a vitriolic attack on people, presumably in Philippi, who are his enemies, people whom he calls “dogs,” “evil workers,” and “those who mutilate the flesh” (3:2).
MY COMMENT:
I think Paul is warning the Philippians about these dangerous people who although religious are really evil workers. I don’t interpret it as Paul being bitter or hateful. He’s just stating the facts. He calling it as he sees it. The wicked are like mad dogs. Especially when they’re religious.
DR EHRMAN: I don’t see the statement, “those who mutilate the flesh” in 3:2. Where did you get that from?
Philippians 3:2-Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision;
RE: “Paul has explained his own situation, given some admonitions, stated the purpose of his writing, and provided his concluding exhortation: “Finally, brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord” (3:1). Why does he say “finally,” but then change the subject completely and continue writing for another two chapters?”
But he does exactly the same thing in 1 Thessalonians. Chapter 4 opens “finally therefore, brothers”, and then Paul goes on and on for two chapters. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it argued that 1 Thessalonians is a composite – it’s just that Paul was not known for his brevity.
Good point! (With Philippians it’s a cumulative argument; and it’s not completely clear the two “finally’s” are functioning exactly the same — το λοιπον in Philippians instead of just λοιπον, as in 1 Thess. Still, good point)
Dr. Ehrman, I have no idea if you respond to comments and questions on 8 year old posts, but I’m going to roll the dice here anyway. I’m just curious if you have further thoughts on how or why the multiple Philippian letters were conflated. It seems that the same thing happens in 2 Corinthians–chapters 10-13 presuppose an earlier historical context than the letter in the preceding chapters. Is it perhaps just out of expediency that the multiple letters were collected on one papyrus and out of ignorance that the chronology is jumbled?
Assuming you see this, just want to say how much I’ve benefitted from your work. I only discovered your work maybe a year or so ago and since then have become a voracious consumer of your content on Great Courses (now Wondrium), Thrive Cart, here on the blog and of course your books. It is rare for such a serious scholar as yourself to have the knack for explaining complicated material to us ordinary folk in a way that honors the scholarship and illuminates our minds. Thank you for sharing your work with us!
Yes I do! We don’t really know — but this sort of thing did happen outside the Bible as well. It may be that someone wanted to have just one letter from Paul covering the major points found in two letters (maybe not wanting to make it too long? not having enough writing material? not agreeing with some of the things he said in the other parts?) and so just spliced a couple (or more!) together.