Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Philippians, Munro, and Loisy

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Brian Tucker <music AT riverviewcog.org>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Philippians, Munro, and Loisy
  • Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 21:59:37 -0400


Greetings

Thanks for the information on this compelling subject. The bibliography you
provided
will be helpful in my future study. I have been wrestling with this subject
recently
and I have received some well formulated responses to many of these same
issues. Below
you will see my current (tentative) thoughts on this matter.

[much snipped]


Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

> It seems rather clear to me that the two letters were written by Paul from
> the Roman prison. I don't see any need to place this imprisonment in
> Ephesus, or elsewhere.
>

Reasons to reject the interpolation theory

1. Polycarp's "letters" may refer to a Macedonian collection which would
include
Thessalonians (circulation).
2. Theory of combination is conjecture.
3. Kummel asks how a redactor could feel competent to alter these letters by
removing
the introductions and conclusions of one or more of these letters, since the
suggested
interpolation is clearly not a letter in itself. (Kummel, Intro to NT, 1966,
226-237)
4. There are repeated words and themes present in both the alleged "original
letter"
and the section under dispute:
4a. "to gain" (1:21; 3:7)
4b. "to reckon" (5 times)
4c. Reference to the "state" or "citizens" (1:27; 3:20)
4d. Themes of joy, contentment in trials, confidence in the Philippians.
4e. A linking of Paul's fate as an apostle with the church (1:29-30 with
3:10-11).
5. The enemies of 1:27ff are different from 3:2ff. The former represent the
hostile
world; the latter work from within the body. Thus, Paul can view them
differently.
6. 3:2 resumes the ethical admonitions of 2:12f.

Why reject the idea of an interpolation in 4:10-23?
1. See 1. above
2. Allusions to the gift occur already at 1:7 and 2:25 while Paul is in the
habit of
giving personal thanks at the end of his letters. The "lateness" of the
thanksgiving
is actually an indication of Pauline style of writing.

Tentative conclusion: There is no compelling evidence to lead one to reject
the unity
of Philippians. From the beginning of its manuscript history there has only
been one
canonical letter (P46~ca. 200). Compilation theories actually resolve
nothing, they
merely shift the problems of order and organization from Paul to an unknown
editor.

Here is some other bibliography:

David Alan Black, argues "Philippians is an integral composition whose primary
rhetorical function is deliberative, that is, the bulk of the letter is
directed
toward solving the issue of disunity arising from the exigence reflected most
clearly
in 4:2-3." his understanding of Philippians from the perspective of discourse
analysis
is rather convincing as it pertains to the unity of the letter.

Ronald Russell. "Pauline Letter Structure In Philippians." JETS 25/3 (Sep. 82)
295-306. He argues that Philippians is not an abstract theological treatise
but a
circumstantial pastoral response to local church needs. He argues for
irregularity as
regularity in "the Pauline letter form." This provides the basis for accepting
Philippians as one letter.

Robert Swift. "The Theme and Structure of Philippians." BibSac Jul.-Sep 1984.
234-254.
Argues that Philippians has one central theme that is broad enough to explain
the
details of the entire epistle, and that the development of this theme follows
a
literary structure that is as systematic, coherent, and logical as that of
any NT
epistle.

> Also, in the next two messages, I will add some more re Phil from the past
> Crosstalk discussions, and I will post my reconstruction of the original
> parts written by Paul.

I look forward to your reconstructions.

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






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page