Corpus-Paul

["Brian Tucker" <music AT riverviewcog.org>]

Greetings,

Thanks for the response and the bibliography was particularly helpful.I am 
also interested in your view of the polemic in context of the argument...

> 3.  The crux of course is the break between 3.1 and 3.2.  The formulae 
> there have been examined carefully by Reed, and in my own thesis I 
> suggest a reading of the polemic in chapter 3 that ties it in closely 
> with the argument of the rest of the letter.
> 

1. There still seems to a be significant break at 3:1 and 4:9. I am still 
unclear if we are dealing with one letter composed as such, or a number of 
Paul's writings joined together. 3:1 seems to prepare the reader for the 
conclusion of the letter, but 3:2 shifts to false teachers. So, you do not 
see this as perhaps another letter? I would be interested in your 
explanation for the transition from 4:9 to 4:10.

2. Epaphroditus is said to sick in 2:25-ff but in 4:18 sickness is not 
mentioned. There seems to be a lapse of time?

3. Paul's opponents are not the same throughout the letter: 3:2-4 false 
teachers attack seems misplaced. Pollard concludes that there still is 
verbal agreement with chapter 3 and the rest of the letter.(p. 66) Could 
that simply be that Paul wrote all the fragments?

4. 4:1-9, 20-23 both could be conclusions.

5. Polcarp mentions that Paul wrote "epistles" to the Philippians (_Phil_ 
3.2). Doesn't this open the way for multiple letters.

6. Wikenhauser's conclusion: "The composition breaks aburptly at 2,19; 3,2; 
4,2 10. It is possible - but cannot be proved - the Phil. is a conflation 
of various writings which Paul composed and sent to Philippi at various 
times...At any rate, the entire Epistle bears the stamp of Paul's language 
and style." (p. 437)

Thank You
Brian Tucker, M.A.
Riverview, MI
music AT riverviewcog.org