Could Paul’s moving and powerful letter to the Philippians actually be *two* letters that were later cut and spliced together?

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.

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?

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?  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).  He then defends his own understanding of the gospel against these false teachers (3:3-11).  A peaceful letter of friendship has now become a harsh letter of warning.

Moreover, the issue of Christian unity takes on an additional twist in these chapters.  We learn that there are two women in particular, Euodia and Syntyche, who are at odds with one another and causing something of a disturbance in the community (4:2-3).  No longer does Paul deal in the abstract with the need for unity; now he actually puts some names on the problem.  What is particularly interesting is that Epaphroditus is again mentioned in these closing chapters.  But if you didn’t know better, you would think that he had just arrived, not that he had been with Paul already for an extended period of time (see, e.g., 4:18, “I am fully satisfied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent”).  In any case, it is now clear why Epaphroditus has come and why Paul is penning this letter.  The Philippians have sent him to bring a financial contribution, and Paul is writing a thank-you note.

But this is puzzling.  If Epaphroditus has been with Paul for such a long period of time — long enough for him to take deathly ill, for the Philippians to get word of it, for him to learn that they were distressed, and for him then to recover — why is Paul only now writing to tell them that he has received the gift?  Surely he was in communication with them before this (they have heard that Epaphroditus arrived, and that he later became deathly ill).

Scholars differ on how to evaluate these various pieces of the contextual puzzle.  One solution is that there there are two or possibly even three letters that have been edited together here, letters that come from different times written for different occasions.  For simplicity’s sake, I’ll assume that there are two letters and explain how the theory works.Scholars differ on how to evaluate these various pieces of the contextual puzzle.  One solution is that there there are two or possibly even three letters that have been edited together here, letters that come from different times written for different occasions.

After Paul established the Philippian church, he left to pursue his apostolic work elsewhere, although we don’t know exactly where he was when he’s writing this letter, or series of letters (Rome?  Ephesus?) — only that he was in jail.  The Philippians learned of his needs, and sent him a gift of money through the agency of one of their leading members, Epaphroditus.  Paul thankfully received the gift and learned (from Epaphroditus himself?) about two major problems in the community: some false teachers had begun to stress the need to keep the Jewish Law (see 3:3-6), and two women in the congregation had argued over something in public (4:2-3).  He wrote the Philippians a letter, partially embodied now in chaps. 3-4, thanking them for the gift, warning against the false teachers, and urging Euodia and Syntyche to get along.

After Paul sent this letter, Epaphroditus became ill; the Philippians learned of it and became concerned; Epaphroditus heard of their concern and became distraught; and finally, he recovered.  In the course of the communication that was obviously going back and forth, Paul learned of the improved situation in Philippi.  When Epaphroditus became well enough to travel, Paul sent another letter back with him, a friendship letter explaining how things now fared with him and providing some renewed (but general) exhortations to maintain their unity in Christ.  Most of this letter is now found in Philippians 1-2.

Some such scenario would explain why there are such differences between the first and second parts of the letter.   Someone later compiled a letter made up of “Paul’s Greatest Hits” (to the Philippians) by splicing parts of the two letters together.

Over $2 Million Donated to Charity!

We have two goals at Ehrman Blog. One is to increase your knowledge of the New Testament and early Christianity. The other is to raise money for charity! In fact, in 2022, we raised over $360,000 for the charities below.

Become a Member Today!

 

2024-06-05T15:54:36-04:00June 4th, 2024|Paul and His Letters, Reader’s Questions|

Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms

16 Comments

  1. RayCiafardiniJr June 4, 2024 at 3:46 pm

    Hi Dr. Ehrman. Question unrelated to the post (please forgive me). One of the arguments I keep hearing for the accuracy of the Gospels is that the stories would have been corrected/stopped when they started because people were there to correct/stop them who knew what happened. And because the stories weren’t corrected/stopped, they must be accurate. I get there are a lot of arguments for the authenticity (or inauthenticity) of the Gospels. It’s this one in particular that doesn’t make sense to me if the groups of people spreading the stories were small. It seems reasonable that a small group of people could keep stories going, true or not. What am I missing? Thank you!

    • BDEhrman June 7, 2024 at 6:04 am

      yes, I hear that argument a lot and to me it makes zero sense. Have you ever heard about someone who says something about you that isn’t true? Was there any way you could prevent others from saying the same thing? Being around to correct something never means that things necessarily get corrected. If someone in Ephesus tells a story about Peter and Peter lives in jersualem and has never been to Ephesus, how can he correct the story? I myself have tons of things said about me — often by people I know, even in writing — that are just wrong. There’s no way to stop it.

      • RayCiafardiniJr June 7, 2024 at 6:08 am

        Thank you! Enjoy your trip and lectures!

  2. fishician June 4, 2024 at 4:08 pm

    1. When do you think this splicing would have taken place? 2. Are there similar examples of combining letters or other writings in the secular 1st Century world? Seems like that would bolster the case of Paul’s letters being spliced together.

    • BDEhrman June 7, 2024 at 6:07 am

      Pretty early — say some years after the letters were first received, and obviously before any of our surviving mss. Yes, it would be interesting to see such things elsewhere, but there would have bveen little reason for someone to do this for, say, the letters of Cicero or Pliny; Paul’s letters were starting to be traed as “atuhoritative” and circulated that way, so that getting the key points of key letters together in a compact form makes some sense, e.g., if the Corinthian church wanted to circulate key communications of Paul. That sort of thign does happen iwth othe rChristian materials, quite clearly, such as the Didache.

    • BDEhrman June 7, 2024 at 6:07 am

      Pretty early — say some years after the letters were first received, and obviously before any of our surviving mss. Yes, it would be interesting to see such things elsewhere, but there would have bveen little reason for someone to do this for, say, the letters of Cicero or Pliny; Paul’s letters were starting to be traed as “atuhoritative” and circulated that way, so that getting the key points of key letters together in a compact form makes some sense, e.g., if the Corinthian church wanted to circulate key communications of Paul. That sort of thign does happen iwth othe rChristian materials, quite clearly, such as the Didache.

  3. fergmcb June 4, 2024 at 4:40 pm

    As the self-appointed Asker of The Question, I must inquire, “When will we be able to listen to the May Q&A?” 🙂

    • BDEhrman June 7, 2024 at 6:08 am

      Houston, we appear to have a problem. (The same problem.) I’ll look into it.

  4. RichardFellows June 5, 2024 at 2:07 am

    You wrote, “Why does he say “finally,” but then change the subject completely and continue writing for another two chapters?”. He does not. In 3:1a, as in 4:4 he urges them to rejoice in their persecutions. He is worried that, instead, they will seek to avoid persecution by finding their citizenship (1:27: 3:20) in the synagogue community, which would involve accepting circumcision and the Law. He warns them against this course of action (3:1-20) and urges them to stand firm and rally behind their leaders, Euodia and Syntyche (4:1-4).

    “why is Paul only now writing to tell them that he has received the gift?”. He is not. Phil 4:9-20 does not thank the Philippians for the gift, and there is no indication that he is telling them for the first time that he has received the gift. The passage has a very different purpose. As elsewhere in the letter, he is describing his own attitude as a model for the Philippians to imitate, and he is encouraging them to follow the example of those among them who modelled mutual concern by their giving. He may be commending Euodia in particular, for he seems to mention her name in 4:18 (ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας).

  5. Alfred June 5, 2024 at 7:01 am

    Fascinating, as always. Assuming the splicing to have been done as you describe, is it possible that the splicer assumed the users of his (or her?) written text would understand the spliced nature of the work? Possibly because they were already familiar with both texts?

    • BDEhrman June 7, 2024 at 6:13 am

      I guess there would be no way to know.

  6. Teamonger June 5, 2024 at 5:55 pm

    The idea of spliced together letters makes me wonder about pseudepigraphy. Could any of the New Testament letters be a combination of the real author combined with a pseudo author spliced on later? For example, could 1 Timothy start as an actual letter from Paul to Timothy, then other stuff got added later? I’m imagining a scribe was too lazy to change scrolls…

    • BDEhrman June 7, 2024 at 6:24 am

      Some have suspectd that 2 Timothy is by a forger who is using bits of surviving Pauline letters, so yes, it’s possible. It’s hard to demonstrate in any particular case though, since linguistic analyses on small bits of text are dubious (not enough data points). But there are passages such as 2 Corinthians 6 (don’t be unequally yoked passage) that appear to be by a different hand from Paul’s given vocabulary and conceptual differences…)

      • Teamonger June 7, 2024 at 2:21 pm

        Thanks Bart. Would it make sense to think that the beginning of an epistle is more likely genuine, with the “pseudo stuff” being added in later? Also, if all this scribal splicing is going on, is it always necessary to think that a conscious forgery is happening? In the process of putting things in a “compact form” as you say above, perhaps the lead scribe pushes a pile towards his understudy, says “Here’s the Paul stuff, get busy!”, and so the final scroll ends up a mishmash. Maybe some original authors of pseudo stuff never intended to impersonate Paul?

        By the way, what do you think Paul (or pseudo Paul) is referring to as “myths and endless genealogies” in 1 Tim 1:4? I had read somewhere that some think it might refer to the virgin birth stories and their accompanying genealogies, which the author is warning against as speculations and distractions. That explanation sure seems to fit..

        • BDEhrman June 9, 2024 at 2:43 pm

          Not necessarily. Normally the beginnings of forgeries are forged very carefully to make sure readers see who the “author” is right out of the gate.
          Some scholars think this refers to teh later polemic against gnostic teachings (mythologies and genealogies of deities0. I’m not sure. But I don’t see anything to link them to birth stories, and the genealogies of Jesus so far as we know never ever caused problems in proto-orthodox/orthodox circules.

          • Teamonger June 9, 2024 at 4:04 pm

            Yes marking a forgery with the right name makes sense, but I could see it also being the first page of a pile of “Paul stuff”.

            I found old article by J. Edward Barrett, “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?”, includes:
            “In a seldom discussed passage in the New Testament, Paul warns Timothy not to occupy himself “with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith” (1 Timothy 1:4). Paul believes that Christian teachers who propagate such stories fail to understand “either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions” (1 Timothy 1:3–7). If we ask what Paul could possibly be describing as “myths” in close association with “genealogies,” the virgin birth stories immediately come to mind. Only Matthew and Luke contain virgin birth stories and genealogies—in close proximity. Since widespread scholarly consensus dates the authorship of Matthew and Luke to about 85 A.D., about 20 years after the death of Paul (c. 65 A.D.), Paul would not have been familiar with their writing. But he may have been familiar with an already developing tradition concerning Jesus’ virgin birth—and considered it to be both fanciful and harmful to faith!”

Leave A Comment