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 see the rest of this post you will need to be a blog member. Hey, it couldn’t be easier. Hit join and join! There’s a small membership fee, but all of it goes to charity. So hey, treat yourself!
Something I thought of yesterday. Paul was an apocalyptic preacher – the end was nigh and God would cast down the evil and restore the good. Part of that understanding was that this world was in the grip of an evil spirit and that the powerful and wealthy were powerful and wealthy because they were allied with this evil. At the same time, Paul says in Romans 13 that the authorities are put there by God and we should obey them. This seems like a contradiction. What am I missing?
I know, it seems a bit strange. But Paul himself acknowledges that he advances different views in different circumstances, as the occaiosn requires.
I went back and reread the section on Philippians in “The New Testament: A Historical Introduction.” Box 20:10 – “Was Paul Contemplating Suicide?” is of particular interest.
The first two chapters as you say sound like a friendship letter. Starting with chapter three, his writings have a firmer tone. Is it possible that the possible ups and downs of his mental status while in prison also had an impact on how he wrote his writings? And in the end, we we’re left with one letter made up of separate letters written by a man whose mental health in general was possibly erratic?
It’s certainly possible. But it does seem like a kind of short letter for that to happen. Who knows?
In my reading I have recently found that Matt 28:1, which tells of the women coming to the tomb, should be translated as ‘after the Sabbaths’ i.e. plural [οψε δε Σαββατων].
This rendering recognises that there were, in fact, two sabbaths in Holy Week and has implications for the day of Jesus’ crucifixion – Thursday (the day before the Passover sabbath) rather than the traditionally held Friday (the day before the weekly ‘Saturday’ sabbath).
If a plural translation should indeed be the correct one why is this not to be found in our Bibles, please?
Yes, one would think that at first glance! But it is just an odd way of saying either “day of the week” or “last day of the week.” No one placed the sabbath on Thursday. You’ll notice that the plural is used a few words later, to refer to “week” (the first day of the Sabbaths).
Slightly OT, if you don’t mind: In Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, do you think the passage denouncing “the Jews” (1 Thess. 2:13-16) is his or was it a later interpolation? I’m leaning toward the first position, but there are difficulties either way, to the point whether I wonder if it might part his and part later? His “eis telos” (to the utmost) has been used to argue this line must be post-destruction, but I’ve also seen an argument that it (and orge, wrath) could be referring to the expulsion of the Jews from Rome that happened the year before (assuming a 50ish date for the epistle).
I think it’s Paul’s. People sometimes argue it could not be because it must be a reference to 70 CE, but I think Romans 1:18-32 shows clearly it doesn’t have to be. I don’t know if he has something specific in mind or not, but I don’t think a local situation in Rome is probably what he has inmind in 1 THess.
Gee, I’ve read it many times, but until you pointed it out I didn’t realize that 3:1 sounds like the end of one letter and the start of another. Question about content, though: recently read James Tabor’s book about Paul’s ascent to Paradise: he suggests in the Philippians Hymn of chap. 2 that Jesus is the new Adam. Whereas Adam sought equality with God, Jesus did not but remained obedient, even to death. Thus God exalted him to his place in heaven. It was not that Jesus had descended from God and then ascended back, but it was a one-way trip, i.e., Jesus was human and then exalted to heaven. There are other verses in the NT that speak of Jesus as a man chosen and exalted by God. This did not become the “orthodox” view, but do you think it was a common or widespread view until the orthodox view prevailed and was enforced?
Yes, that view has been around in scholarship for some decades. I think it doesn’t actually work, but it takes some detailed explanation of the Greek words to who why. I talk abouit it in my book How Jesus Became God. Paul certainly did see Jesus as the second Adamm (see Romans 5) — but that’s not what’s going on here I think.
Any thoughts on why the earlier letter got appended to the end of the later letter? Maybe the editors thought that a cheery tone was a good way to start a letter?
Makes sense! But I don’t really know.
Do fundamentalists resist the conclusion that two (or three) letters have been spliced together?
Absolutely!
P.S.T.
Did you ask because a person with “fundamentalist views” may choose to view the bible as infallible and to imply anything less or more (in this case, 1-2 letters more) would question “the word of god?”
I am inclined to believe this as well.
I thought perhaps any indication of human manipulation might be seen as undermining the notion of the “infallible word of god.” But I suppose you could also argue that whoever put the two letters together was divinely inspired to do so.
Fascinating Bart;
Which does prompt the question of why it might be that the original two letters were spliced together in the non-sequential sequence that is observed in all surviving manuscripts? Similar questions might be asked of 2 Corinthians; which also seems to have been assembled from several letters, put together non-sequentially.
Going back a bit now; but I recall its being suggested that references to Paul’s ‘letter’ in 1 Clement implied that at that time only one letter to the Corinthians was in wide circulation – the text we now know as 1 Corinthians. Whereas by the time of 2 Peter and Marcion, Paul’s ‘letters’ were circulating as a bulk collection. It being further speculated that the extra letter texts in this latter collection may have been re-arranged to present a similar thematic order to that observed in 1 Corinthians – that being the paradigmatic ‘letter of Paul’.
Yup, same think in both places. I suppose the splicer didn’t know the sequence they were written in — they are just two letters he had. As to 1 Clement, that’s certainly possible; but sometimes I have people come up to me and say “I read that book you wrote.”
Hi Bart. Completely unrelated to the topic, but any news on your new course for the Great Courses?
We put it off because of Covid, but I need to do the revisions of th electures over the next few weeks, and presumably we’ll tape it in a fewmonths?
Do you think Marcion had a hand in this?
I think it must have happened long before his time.
In these situations where Paul is encountering opposition from converts who think you must also be Torah observant, how would this conflict have arisen? Was Paul targeting previously existing expat Jewish Christian groups or were they targeting his congregations? If Paul is only approaching gentiles who don’t know Judaism how is this connection being made? How would these differing groups even know one another existed?
Thanks
ps Doesn’t this conflict at least imply that there was an active non-Pauline ministry to the gentiles?
There probably were non-Pauline missions, yes. But Paul’s conflicts in, say, Galatoians, andI would guess PHilippians, are with those who are gentile converts who have come to believe that one has to become Jewishto follow the Jewish messiah… It’s clearer in Galatians, where he refers to these opponents themselves undergoing circumcision, hopeing they castrate themselves (Gal 5:12)
Would reversing the order of the two letters made the change in tone less jarring?
Interesting idea, but I’m not sure it would.
I did wonder whether the letter is back to front and chapters 3 and 4 should come first. But that still doesn’t resolve the Epaphroditus problem. It’s fascinating to think that we may have as many as 3 individual Pauline letters all wrapped up in the Epistle to the Philippians.
A few questions regarding letters.
Why were any of Paul’s letters saved at all? They’re often so hard to understand (apparently even for the original audience 2Cor10:10) that it’s surprising they weren’t just tossed out as nonsensical ramblings by the first recipient. Like why would the church in Rome have saved and copied his long and confusing letter when they didn’t even know him? Was saving correspondences just a common ancient practice?
Second, how were they being distributed to have become prevalent enough to eventually be considered “catholic/universal”? Were churches telling others they had received a letter and then sending them a copy if requested? Or were they later collected by someone like those of Ignatius?
Lastly, it’s odd that we don’t possess or have any mention of letters from the original apostles. We know that Peter was visiting one (maybe more) of these same communities and James was also sending people there. Do you think they just didn’t compose any letters or did they just not survive? (Even if illiterate, they could’ve dictated letters.) If these communities were saving/sharing Paul’s letters, its odd they wouldn’t have saved/copied those from Peter or James considering their importance.
1.They were read in the churhces and considered highly valuable for instrucgint Christians; 2. They were copied and taken to various Christian travelers. 3. the original apostles almost certainly were illiterate; and you can’t dictate a highly literary letter with complicated grammar unless you’re educated. They weren’t
At the end of the letter Paul relays greetings from the “saints” (Christians) “of the emperor’s household” (4:22). What?? Claudius and Nero had Christians in their households who were in communication with Paul? It can’t mean that. What do you think? Thank you.
The emperor’s household included his many thousands of slaves located around the world. Paul’s not referring to Christians in the emperor’s palace in Rome.
Bart
Thanks for the explanation.
I kind of assumed this was not quite the bombshell it seemed.
Love it, “Paul’s Greatest Hits”!
Luke could have saved a lot of space in
“Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.”
with “Jesus’ Greatest Hits”!
(sorry for my English,Ispeak Spanish as a native language)
Dear Dr Ehrman ,you said “After Paul sent this letter, Epaphroditus became ill” but in 2:30, we can read : “for he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was lacking in your service to me.”… apparently Epaphroditus had to work to complete the “service”, now in 4:18, Paul wrote: “I have received full payment and have more than enough. I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent…” so, if he had received a full payment why Epaphroditus had to complete it?? Perhaps the order has to be reversed as somebody said o maybe there was a lot of letters and these were only two of them , in 4:16 Paul said “for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid more than once when I was in need.” so the Phillipians aided Paul multiple times and probably each time Paul has sent a thank-you letter in response …
Yes, that’s right. Of the remains of two letters, the remains of chs. 3-4 were the *first* letter, and the letter found partially in chs. 1-2 was sent later.
Tank you for your answer
I don’t know if this is the exact place to post the following question but i get shocked when i read this from a comment by RAhmed:
“Like why would the church in Rome have saved and copied his long and confusing letter when they didn’t even know him?”
That very question is one that i ask myself before because it’s easy to understand why the philippians, thessalonians or corinthians kept Paul’s letters , but that of the Romans?
Why we don’t know almost anything about the churches that left two historic records (that of Seutonius and that of Tacitus) in the first century but do have this letter from Paul?
My theory is that a copy was kept in Corinth , the city form where Paul write it, is there any scholar work about thsi issue?
(again sorry for my english , i don t use on line translation i try to write straight in english)
I’m not sure I follow the question exactly. Most of the things I read are written by people I don’t know, and I keep them on my bookshelf. (I can’t remember why the person who asked the qeustion was asking about someone in Rome saving a letter to Philippians) And I’m not sure what you mean about not knowing anything about the Roman church in the first century? We also have a very long letter written *by* the church at the end of the period, 1 Clement.