Corpus-Paul

["Revd Dr Sean F. Winter" <sean.winter AT virgin.net>]

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...

In brief I argue that 3.2 and 3.18-19 are polemical portrayals of 
Judaism, as a religious/philosophical system, as another form of 
gentile paganism, and thus as a counter-example to the pattern of 
cruciform existence that Paul seeks for the Philippians, and claims to 
live out himself.  That is the short summary; the long one is 
thesis-length and is the the process of being re-written for 
publication.
> 
> > 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.

My view then is that we are talking about 1 letter composed as such. 
3.1 does not look like a conclusion if you note that TO LOIPON can act 
in Paul as a transition formula (1 Thess 4.1; 2 Thess 3.1) and the 
CHAIRETE should be translated "rejoice" and not "farewell".  Reed's 
article, (JBL 115 (1996), 63-90) identifies 3.1 as a hesitation 
formula, appropriate to a friendly letter like Philippians.  I would 
also soften the break by translating BLEPETE in v2 as "consider" (as 
in 1 Cor 10.18), rather than "beware" cf. Kilpatrick's article in In 
Memoriam Paul Kahle BZAW 103, Leiden: Brill, 1968, 146-148.
> 
> 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?
>

If Epaph. is well enough to travel as 2.25 suggests, then the illness 
is obviously past at the time of writing.  Ther is no need to mention 
it at 4.18.

> 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?

Possibly, but it is it possible that the kind of verbal parallels, as 
well as rhetorical and structural parallels that Garland and Wick and 
Watson identify could have been written months or years apart?  Much 
more likely that they are there because Philippians is a carefully 
constructed argument. The 'opponents' are different in the letter, but 
all serve the same rhetorical purpose, i.e. as counter examples, or 
anti-models, to the pattern of existence that is worthy of the gospel 
of Christ.

> 4. 4:1-9, 20-23 both could be conclusions.4.8 marks a transition to a final 
> exhortation.  Identifying the letter 
ending is not easy, but it is enirely possible to suggest that 4.8-23 
as a whole mark the letter closing (as does Weima, Neglected Endings, 
JSNTSup 101; Sheffield, 1994).
> 
> 5. Polcarp mentions that Paul wrote "epistles" to the Philippians (_Phil_
> 3.2). Doesn't this open the way for multiple letters.

See the commentaries (e.g. Martin, 11-13)for other explanations of 
Polycarp's plurals

> 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)

Of course it is possible.  It is just unlikely!!!
> Sean