Loading...
I have been discussing whether we have the “original” text of Paul’s letters, and have argued that 2 Corinthians in fact is probably two and maybe (my view) as many as five letters spliced together. It’s not the only letter of Paul’s that we may not have an “original” version of (assuming that the earlier letters that were cut and then spliced together are more original). We have a similar problem with Philippians, long my favorite Pauline letter — so much my favorite as a young person that I memorized it at age 18! But since then I have seen there are some problems that it presents. I addressed these long ago on the blog in response to a question.
The question, as you’ll see, is simply about whether Philippians was original to Paul. But it got me off on to a range of issues all closely related, over a series of posts. Here’s the first, with the question.
QUESTION(S):
Would you agree that the letter written to the Philippians was an original writing of Paul? Do you agree that the first copy of the letter written by Paul to the Philippians was also an original? Assuming there were errors made by the person(s) who copied the original letter of Paul to the Philippians, would you agree that the first copy even with some errors still had the original context of the first letter? If you do agree, then is it totally accurate to say that we don’t have the original letter of Paul written to the Philippians? Don’t you think that it’s more accurate to state that we do have the original but it has been altered to some degree? Has the letter to the Philippians written by Paul been altered so much that we can’t really know what the original proclaimed?
RESPONSE:
These are great questions. They have the benefit of making very concrete some of the things that I have said, in general terms, about the textual tradition of the New Testament. I think I might devote a few posts to delving into the issues that the questioner has raised, since the answers are not as simple as one might imagine, and they open up a number of very interesting issues that need to be decided when trying to resolve the questions of (a) what the “original” text of a book like Philippians might have been, and (b) whether we can reasonably hope to know what that original text was.
But before going into detail with various parts of the problems that are involved, let me give here in this post a more rapid-fire shorthand response to each of the questions seriatim. I’ll do that by repeating each question and then giving a brief reply.
1) Would you agree that the letter written to the Philippians was an original writing of Paul?
Yes, Philippians is one of the seven “undisputed letters” of Paul, a phrase that scholars use as a shorthand to say that virtually (but not entirely) all scholars are sure that Paul really wrote these letters, as opposed to the pseudepigraphical letters that are thought widely not to have been written by Paul even though they claim Paul as their author. The undisputed letters are Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. The others are all thought – either by most critical scholars or by lots of them – to be “forged” – that is written in the name of Paul by someone claiming to be Paul even though he was, and knew that he was, someone else.
One problem with Philippians, however, that I will need to address, is whether it is in fact a single letter. There are good reasons, as it turns out, for thinking that it is two fragments of letters that have been spliced together into one.
2) Do you agree that the first copy of the letter written by Paul to the Philippians was also an original?
I’m not sure I know what this question means. The first copy of a book is not the original of the book but the first copy of the original. It is an “original first copy” – but it is not the original of the book. Even more significant: what does it mean to call something the “original”? On one hand, part of the answer to this question is easy: the term “original” is not applied to any of the copies made after the original was made. But what is the original? The answer may seem obvious to you (it used to seem obvious to me!). But I’m going to show in a later post why, in fact, it is highly problematic.
3) Assuming there were errors made by the person(s) who copied the original letter of Paul to the Philippians, would you agree that the first copy even with some errors still had the original context of the first letter?
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Hi bart
I was wondering that is it impossible to see Jesus before the second coming acording to the new testament/revolution.
I’m afraid I’m not sure what you mean.
Hi bart
In Mark 13: 20 jesus is talking about the end times in a way that it cannot come immediately because people had to be saved, but i dont think jesus saw his death as a sacrafice for sins. Was this passage later made up because people belived that jesus died for their sins. Also in Mark 13: 20 he says that no one exept the father know the hour when the son of man will come. Was this also later added because jesus said Mark 9:1 or did he mean that it will come in his life time but he did not know the hour?
1. Saying people first have to be saved does not necessarily mean they will be saved by an atoning sacrifice.
2. Knowing that hte end will come soon is not the same as saying you know the hour of its coming.
Sorry to wander astray, but I had to bite and google portraits of Jesus in the Lourve. I was actually surprised to find one, “Head of Christ”, (a Circle of Rembrandt painting done by one of Rembrandt’s associates, though Rembrandt likely worked on it as well) that had a Jewish model – albiet ashkenazi in appearance to me. All the rest were pretty European including the one that looks like the actor Robert Taylor. Personally, I suspect Jesus looked more like Yasir Arafat.
Bart wrote: “We have a similar problem with Philippians, long my favorite Pauline letter — so much my favorite as a young person that I memorized it at age 18!”
This is very interesting in light of the fact that you have made a study of the accuracy of memory. Have you considered the possibility of making a personal test of the accuracy of your initial memorization?
Sure, it’s easy to do. I’ve forgotten most of it though. I recognize the verses of ocurse and can quote lots of them — and to see if I’m accurate, I just look them up!
Hi Bart, could you share your thoughts on this interpretation?
“The these things of verse 29 clearly refers to the “these things” of verse 4 and verse 8, and the “everything” (Greek, “all things”) of verse 23, that is, the troubles that his disciples are to expect, including the destruction of Jerusalem. Logically, if verses 24–27 describe the end, then these verses cannot be the “these things” that assure one that an end will come! Thus, the these things of verse 30 must also refer, not to the end itself, but to the tribulations described in verses 5–23. These things will happen in the lifetime of the Twelve (v. 30), but that does not mean that the end will happen in so short a period of time” (Larry W. Hurtado, Mark).
Sorr, I’m not sure what passage you’re referring to. But it sounds like a confusing exegesis!
This is an interpretation of Mark 13
Now other readers of the blog won’t know what you’re asking about it. You’ll need to mention the passage and then ask the question about it, otherwise they won’t know what we’re talking about.
He claims that verses 5 to 23 refer to the destruction of the temple, and verses 24 to 27 refer to an indeterminate time. And if verses 24-27 describe the end, it means they cannot be the things that assure the end is coming. Thus, verses 29 and 30 relate to the passage from 5 to 23. In this way, the issue of the end of the world occurring in the disciples’ generation is resolved. The phrase “truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away” refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, not the end of the world.
OK, maybe they’ll figure it out now. When Jesus says “all” these things he is usually taken to mean “all the things I’ve been describing,” which includes cosmic disasters, not just the fall of Jerusalem. It’s understandable that modern interpreters don’t want Jesus to have been mistaken when he says that it will all happen in his generation, but it is what he says “all” these things, not some of them.
It’s also worth noting that the earliest followers of Jesus *continued* to think that the end of “all things” was coming very soon, so they appear to have understood him in this way as well, even though, after more time passed, they started thinking that “surely he couldn’t have meant it” — just as some interpreters continue to insist today.
Some apologists argue that cosmic catastrophes should not be interpreted literally. They point to passages like Isaiah 13:10, which speaks in a similar metaphorical tone about the destruction of Babylon. Do you think Jesus might have used a similar style of expression, or did he genuinely refer to cosmic catastrophes? It’s challenging to determine definitively, as understanding the beliefs of people in the 1st century can be difficult. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my initial post; I should have provided more context. Thank you
For that matter, how can we even know that the generally and scholarly consensus that the undisputed seven letters attributable to Paul are not themselves in this same category? I think same argument applies to these’originals’ and earliest copies of these ‘originals’,no? In fact like you have indicated, we don’t have any of the ‘originals’ of any NT book.
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. Philippians is one of those seven, as is 2 Corinthians. So this is indeed a problem for the seven “undisputed” letters.
Chapter 3 doesn’t seem to flow smoothly between Chapters 2 and 4. It starts off as if he’s about to close the letter in verse 1. Then verse 1 continues with what seems to be a rather odd, out of place statement:
“To write the same things to you is not troublesome to me, and for you it is a source of steadfastness.”
He then starts laying into the dogs, evildoers and mutilators.
Is Chapter 3 or part of it thought to be from a different letter?
Yes, that’s the point at which it appears to be from a different letter.
Never mind. I posted the previous comment before your June 4 post appeared. Questions answered.