Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:42:20.565Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Identity of Paul's Opponents at Philippi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Chris Mearns
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This is still an unresolved problem. Our aim is to investigate the question to see whether Paul's opponents are one group or more than one, and to ascertain the nature of their views.

Five assumptions are made; they are taken as axiomatic, so a case for them in detail is not argued. First, the integrity of Phil. has been successfully defended against attempts to analyse it as containing three originally separate letters to the Philippians, especially by P. Schubert, V. Furnish, R. Jewett and T. E. Pollard, and supported by R. P. Martin. This does make it somewhat easier to maintain a single-front hypothesis, but only marginally makes it more probable. The principle of Occam's razor (entia non sint multiplicanda praeter necessitatem), tends to favour the assumption of a uniform view, but only if evidence for multiple opponents appears weak.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 194 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

[1] For a list of authorities favouring two fronts in Phil 3, we Jewett, R.: ‘Conflicting movements in the early church as reflected in Philippians’, NovT 12 (1970) 363 note 1.Google Scholar

[2] For a list of eighteen different ways in which Paul's enemies in Chapter 3 have been understood, see Gunther, J. J., St. Paul's Opponents and their Background (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 2.Google Scholar

[3] Koester, H. takes the three letters hypothesis for granted in Introduction to the New Testament Vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress 1982). But its integrity is maintained byGoogle ScholarSchubert, P., The Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings (BZNW 1939)Google Scholar showing 1. 3 contains a reference ahead to the money gift of 4. 10–20; by Furnish, V. in ‘The place and purpose of Phi1.III’, NTS 10 (1963–64) 80–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who explains the break between 3. 1 and 2 as due to Paul's decision to write an extended postscript on the delicate circumcision topic which he may have at first intended to settle orally through his envoys Timothy and Epaphroditus. Jewett, R. has shown the continuity of terms and themes between the parts of the epistle in ‘The epistolary thanksgiving and the integrity of Philippians’, NovT 12 (1970) 40–53Google Scholar and in ‘Conflicting movements in the early Church as reflected in Philippians’, NovT 12 (1970) 362–90.Google ScholarPollard, T. E., ‘The integrity of Philippians’, NTS 13 (1966–1967) 57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has also shown the relations between terms used in Chapter 3 and the rest of the epistle.

[4] Compare Betz, H-D., Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 7Google Scholar: ‘There is no real reason to believe that these anti-Paulinists were morally dishonest or theologically deficient.’ There is nothing to be gained from following B. Mengel who says Paul is so excited and angered by his opponents in 3. 18–19 that he has become incoherent. See Mengel, B., Studien zum Philipperbrief (Tülbingen: Mohr, 1982) 270–5.Google Scholar

[5] Card, G. B. maintains that Paul's language is more dispassionate, Paul's letters from Prison (O.U.P. 1976) 132–3.Google Scholar For example, βλέπετε, 3. 2, he renders as ‘consider’ rather than ‘beware’.

[6] For the catalogue of misdemeanours attributed to dogs, we Jewett, R., ‘Conflicting movements’, NovT 12 (1970) 385.Google Scholar

[7] See the detailed review of the evidence in Martin, R. P., Philippians (London: Oliphants, 1976) 36–57.Google Scholar He concludes in favour of Ephesus rather than Rome or Caesarea as the place of origin of the imprisonment letters.

[81] Paul probably shaped already existing liturgical material, which had drawn upon developing Jewish speculations about Wisdom as a descending and ascending figure, influenced by Isis aretalogies, (e.g. Prov 8, Wisd 7–8, Sirach 24, 1 Enoch 42). Another influence would have been Jewish speculations about Adam, which Paul would have linked with his own notions of Christ as a ‘Second Adam’, since a contrast is drawn between Adam and Christ in Phil 2. 6–8. These two influences may also have converged with the motif of the oppressed, then vindicated, wise and righteous one, from Wisd 2–5, and from the ‘Servant’ of Isa. and the Psalms. But it may well be that Paul would rather have understood the servant δούλος in terms of bondage to the ‘principalities and powers’, which consisted of sin (Ro 8. 3), Law (Gal 4. 4), and death (Ro 6. 9).

[9] See Collange, J-F., The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians (London: Epworth, 1979) 88.Google Scholar For an interpretation of the prologue of the Fourth Gospel in terms of chiasmus, we Culpepper, R. A., ‘The pivot of John's prologue’, NTS 27 (1981) 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, following the model of Lund, N. W., ‘The influence of chiasmus upon the structure of the gospel’, ATR 13 (1931) 42–6.Google Scholar See also de la Potterie, I., ‘Structure du Prologue de Saint Jean’, NTS 30 (1984) 354–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[10] G. B. Caird warns about this in his commentary, 102. Paul appears to have decided against offering himself for martyrdom by being thrown to the lions at Ephesus during his troubles there; Phil 1. 24 taken together with 1 Cor 15. 32 may indicate this. Paul, unlike Ignatius of Antioch later, does not court martyrdom.

[11] For a survey of the different interpretations of 2. 5, τοṺτο θρονεῑτε ν ὑμῑν ò κα ν Χρισῷ ΊησοṺ concluding in favour of E. Käsemann, we Martin, R. P., Philippians, op. cit. 90–4.Google ScholarLütgert, W. seems to have been the first to suggest that the hymn was a counter to the opponents' arrogance, BFCT (1909) 37 ff.Google Scholar

[12] For early realized eschatology, we Mearns, C. L., ‘Early eschatological development in Paul: the evidence of 1 Corinthians’, JSNT 22 (1984) 18–33.Google Scholar

[13] For the probable change in connotation of parousia from glorious heavenly manifestation used of appearances of the exalted Christ on earth, to its subsequent use to mean the ‘Second Coming’ with conventional apocalyptic accompaniments, we the author's ‘Early eschatological development in Paul: the evidence of 1 and 2 Thessalonians’, NTS 27 (1980–1981) 137–57Google Scholar, especially pp. 142–5.

[14] Stendahl, K., ‘The apostle Paul and the introspective conscience of the West’ in Paul among Jews and Gentiles (London: SCM, 1977) 78–96.Google Scholar In spite of Stendahl's criticism of Bultmann, 77–8, see for the same insight, Bultmann, R., ‘Christ the end of the Law’, in Essays Philosophical and Theological (London: SCM, 1955) 39–40.Google Scholar

[15] For this presupposition about the Galatians, see Betz, H-D., Galatians, 9.Google Scholar

[16] Beare, F. W., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (London: Black, 3rd edn. 1973) 136.Google Scholar

[17] Kennedy, H. A. A., The Epistle to the Philippians (Edinburgh, 1903).Google Scholar

[18] Klijn, A. F. J., ‘Paul's opponents in Philippians 3’, NovT (1964–1965) 278–84.Google Scholar

[19] J-F. Collange, Commentary, 138.

[20] G. B. Caird, Commentary.

[21] J-F. Collange, Commentary, 138.

[22] Koester, H., ‘The purpose of the polemic of a Pauline fragment (Philippians 3)’, NTS 8 (1961–2) 317–32.Google Scholar

[23] Fitzmyer, J., Commentary on Phil. in Jerome Biblical Commentary (London: Chapman, 1968) 247–53.Google Scholar

[24] Koester, H., ‘The purpose of the polemic of a Pauline fragment’, NTS 8, 326.Google Scholar

[25] Schmithals, W., ‘The false teachers of the epistle to the Philippians’ in Paul and the Gnostics (Nashville, 1972) 65–122.Google Scholar

[26] Barth, K., The Epistle to the Philippians (London: SCM, 1962) 113–14.Google Scholar

[27] Jewett, R., ‘The epistolary thanksgiving and the integrity of Philippians’, NovT 12 (1970) 40–53Google Scholar, especially p. 48 note 2.

[28] Fitzmyer, J., Jerome Biblical Commentary 352.Google Scholar

[29] TWNT 1, 189–91.Google Scholar R. Bultmann here draws attention to the parallel ‘play on the sexual sense of αίσχύνη’ in Rev 3. 18, ή αίσχύνη τς γυμνότητός σου.

[30] TWNT 3, 786–9.Google Scholar

[31] Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John (London: Chapman, 1971) 320–4.Google Scholar

[32] Hoskyns, E. C., The Fourth Gospel (London, 1940) 366–7.Google Scholar

[33] Robinson, J. A. T., The Body (London: SCM, 1952) 28.Google Scholar

[34] Klijn, A. F. J., NovT 7.Google Scholar

[35] Scott, E. F., Commentary in Interpreters' Bib1e (Abingdon, 1955) Vol. 11, 11.Google Scholar

[36] Houlden, J. L., Paul's Letters from Prison (London: SCM; 1977) 34, 103.Google Scholar

[37] G. B. Caird, Paul's Letters from Prison.

[38] Koester, H., ‘The purpose of the polemic of a Pauline fragment’, NTS 8, 322.Google Scholar

[39] H. A. A. Kennedy, Commentary.

[40] Müller-Bardoff, J., ‘Zur Frage der Literarischen Einheit des Philipperbriefes’, WZJ 7 (1957–1958) 591–604.Google Scholar

[41] Lohmeyer, E., Der Brief an die Philipper, ed., Schmauch, W. (KEK), Göttingen, 1956.Google Scholar

[42] Schmithals, W. in Paul and the Gnostics, 65–102.Google Scholar

[43] For example, Mc, R.Wilson, L., ‘How gnostic were the Corinthians?’, NTS 19 (1972–1973) 65–74.Google Scholar

[44] Georgi, D., Die Gegner des Paulus im 2 Korintherbrief (Neukirchen, 1964).Google Scholar

[45] Gnilka, J., ‘Die antipaulinische Mission in Philippi’, BZ 9 (1965) 258–76.Google Scholar

[46] Friedrich, G., Der Brief an die Philipper (NTD, 1965).Google Scholar

[47] F-J. Collange, Commentary, 13–14.

[48] Koester, H., ‘The purpose of the polemic of a Pauline fragment’, NTS 8.Google Scholar

[49] R. P. Martin, Commentary, 26.

[50] Other groups in the primitive church also appear to have shared with the Philippian opponents a lack of emphasis on the Cross; they include the communities and editors of the Gospel of Thomas, and also of the Q sayings of Jesus; probably also Paul at the stage of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and the Corinthians at the stages of both 1 and 2 Corinthians.